THE NUKE HOAX

[fbenario]

Much of this article is worthless, since it assumes the actual existence of every aspect of the nuke hoax, but I found the economics bit interesting, since it shows why the perps hold so tightly to the hoax. It ain't just about scaring everyone in sight and making them more sheep-like than ever - it's about making money. What a huge surprise [he says condescendingly].

"The True Cost of the Atomic Myth: "Uranium Dollars" and the Economics of Nuclear Power

The atom scientists of the 1930s- names we still know today, like Fermi and Einstein, argued about those subjects too. But being scientists, they were not especially concerned by what it would all cost. Only later, with the founding of the UN’s Atomic Energy Agency in 1956 – which is essentially a promotional agency for nuclear power – were the key subjects of entrepreneurial effort and the obligatorily linked need for government subsidies brought into the fray.
...
Setting aside this sheer madness, for the last 10 years and especially since 2005, nuclear mercantilism has rapidly grown as the effective and real mover. This extends far beyond simple market and sales maximising strategy, and the strategy is likely coordinated at high level among the key members of the NSG, who number less than 15 OECD countries.
...

Our fuel is uranium and this fuel is very far from rivalling world oil or other hydrocarbons for global turnover, with an approximate value around 13 billion USD in 2010, but as the nuclear industry likes to crow, uranium fuel costs are only around five percent of total operating costs. Uranium supplies are short, and import dependence for most major consumer countries is high. As a result, uranium fuel costs could likely grow, simply due to the permanent supply shortfall of this fuel for reactors and the heavy import dependence of nearly all major users in Europe, Japan and South Korea – incidentally making a mockery of the energy security claim used to sell nuclear energy.

Accessing uranium supplies, mainly in Africa and Central Asia is already a bargaining chip for nuclear financial packaging and uranium supply features among the underlying movers in Chinese rivalry with OECD country interests in Africa, and Russian versus Western rivalry in Muslim Central Asia. Creating the debt-and-dependency hook, and recycling uranium dollars is therefore part and parcel of the nuclear sales drive in starkly unprepared low income countries – in the case of Sudan (Darfur is home to one of the three largest deposits of high-purity uranium in the world), a long-term civil war and in many others exposed to serious civil strife.

FINANCIAL SHOCKER

Until the Fukushima disaster threw a cloud over the so-called Nuclear Renaissance announced by the nuclear industry, this prefigured as many as 100 – 125 reactor sales in emerging and developing countries outside China and India in the 2010-2020 period. Excluding uranium supplies, fuel services (waste and reprocessing), electric power infrastructures and other parts of the nuclear value chain this pre-Fukushima sales target implied a global 10-year turnover value of at least 700 billion USD."

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24457

[regex]

Why would the nuke be faked if the physical laws to explain a nuke exist?

So if a nuclear explosion(and the chainreaction right before) can be rationally explained, why wouldn't they build a nuke?

[brianv]

Why would the nuke be faked if the physical laws to explain a nuke exist?

So if a nuclear explosion(and the chainreaction right before) can be rationally explained, why wouldn't they build a nuke?

Why would the moon-landing be faked if the physical laws to explain a moon-landing exist!? I think applies to your premise laden repeated question!

They'd like to but they cant!

[regex]

Why would the moon-landing be faked if the physical laws to explain a moon-landing exist!? I think applies to your premise laden repeated question!

There's a significant difference between the moon-landing and the supposed "nuke hoax".

What do you need the moon landing for? They needed it for the fame. Just a typical psyop.

And now: Why would you need a nuke? For fame and fear of course but also to defend yourself.

So, of course I can't proove that the USA or anyone else has a nuke but the laws of physics, to create such a bomb, have been proven.

[brianv]

Why would the moon-landing be faked if the physical laws to explain a moon-landing exist!? I think applies to your premise laden repeated question!

There's a significant difference between the moon-landing and the supposed "nuke hoax".

What do you need the moon landing for? They needed it for the fame. Just a typical psyop.

And now: Why would you need a nuke? For fame and fear of course but also to defend yourself.

So, of course I can't proove that the USA or anyone else has a nuke but the laws of physics, to create such a bomb, have been proven.

So why hasn't everyone got one? A bomb. To defend themselves! Or is it only the USA and a few others that's allowed to have it?

Scientists seem to be OK with a hollow plane flying through a giant steel building unscathed!

Science is not completely without it's flaws and payola and spooks and weasels!

[regex]

So why hasn't everyone got one? A bomb. To defend themselves! Or is it only the USA and a few others that's allowed to have it?

Scientists seem to be OK with a hollow plane flying through a giant steel building unscathed!

Science is not completely without it's flaws and payola and spooks and weasels!

My country for example does not have any nuclear plants. How in the world would we get enough stuff to build a bomb?

The countries producing these kind of bombs will of course do everything within their power to not let everyone have nukes.

And of course science has it's flaws but I ask you to go to the next university (or whatever institution) to ask some physicists about the nukes.

Btw I found an interesting video on yt about that topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM

Of course it makes me think if there is some sort of evidence of video fakery but still in my view it is possible to build a nuclear bomb.

[fbenario]

Why would the nuke be faked if the physical laws to explain a nuke exist?

Silly question - you might try learning a little World War II history. The U.S. wanted to scare the Soviets to keep them from invading much of Asia in the immediate post-war period, as they did to Europe. Then, the resulting 'Arms Race' led to much greater military spending, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, blah, blah, blah.

[hoi.polloi]

Since we haven't seen provable damage tied to an actual "nuclear bomb" event, we have every reason to question whether each "nuclear bomb" event has been staged entirely - without the need for real or fake bombs.

But even if you wanted to claim that some kind of real or fake bomb had to exist to convince those around a totally controlled, staged propaganda event, here are some other interesting bits of information:

Japan reported that the USA dropped hundreds of "Dummy" nukes all over Japan before settling on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Also, according to physics studies they teach in school settings, an initial explosion is necessary to apparently set off the "nuclear" explosion. TNT or something else very simple and scientifically demonstrable without fake footage might be put in the supposed nuclear bombs - if they existed. There is good reason to protect us from radiation if it does the damage to natural systems like they say it does. An explanation for this to people who ask questions could easily be "the dynamite is necessary to start the more powerful explosion." But perhaps there is no more powerful explosion at all -- it's just a cover for the fact that the nuclear material never becomes explosive. It's just there to be a "dirty" bomb that spreads nuclear poison on a population ... again, even if such a thing is necessary.

We have already shown that people can be fooled by fake audio and fake video so powerfully that they actually make up details that never happened to them. The same can probably be said for any level of fakery - from "aliens are invading" to "my city was just bombed".

There will be some people who ask questions, but most will apparently not question their government when they are told something is - in some way - "determined" to have qualities they claim it does.

'We have "concluded" this is true through "rigorous" scientific "research" ... ' etc.

[regex]

Silly question - you might try learning a little World War II history. The U.S. wanted to scare the Soviets to keep them from invading much of Asia in the immediate post-war period, as they did to Europe. Then, the resulting 'Arms Race' led to much greater military spending, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum, blah, blah, blah.

That's still no explanation.

The USA had the technology to build a nuclear bomb. Of course these bombs were part of the scare tactics against the Soviet Union but why wouldn't the USA build such a bomb if it is possible?

So what's your point? Do you think that the technology to build such a bomb does not exist OR are the USA too lazy to build it?

[brianv]

My bad for even replying to this diversionary tactic!

Focus!

[hoi.polloi]

The implication is that the bomb just doesn't exist - the technology was not possible when they said it was.

Is it possible now? Who knows? They haven't shown evidence of it.

[simonshack]

So why hasn't everyone got one? A bomb. To defend themselves! Or is it only the USA and a few others that's allowed to have it?

Brian,
Sometimes you amaze me with your simple and plain logic:

Why hasn't everyone got one? I mean, ffs...does anyone think that Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark do not have access to the necessary technology to build an atom bomb? Or perhaps we are supposed to believe that ALL of these countries simply do not care being exposed to the whims of the mad, upper circles of governance in America, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, France, India, etc...?

[regex]

The implication is that the bomb just doesn't exist - the technology was not possible when they said it was.

Ok, so where do all the high levels of radiation come from in Hiroshima?

If nuclear weapons dont exist then there must be some fraud in the science about atoms.

I don't know if you know how a nuclear explosion works, but it is just a rational process. It can be explained. Did you know that most processes that drugs cause cannot explained?
But guess what? They exist.

You're free to publish a paper that explains why it is impossible to build a nuclear bomb.
Try to debunk the nuclear processes during the explosion of an atomic bomb.

I bet that no scientist would agree with you.

[simonshack]

I bet that no scientist would agree with you.

Regex,

I bet that you cannot prove your case either.

Since you joined this forum, you have not contributed a iota of interesting research/or anything worthy of attention. You've only been whining like a baby.

Goodbye.

[xeger]

I bet that you cannot prove your case either.

So you prove your point by banning me?