STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Is the US Moving ‘Real’ Nukes to Romania?
By Daily Bell Staff - August 19, 2016

BRIEF

US moves nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania … Two independent sources told EurActiv.com that the US has started transferring nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey to Romania, against the background of worsening relations between Washington and Ankara.- Euractiv (here)

Always the nukes.

Whenever there is military tension anywhere in the world that involves the US, it often involves the nuclear “threat” as well.

But as we have been reporting, there are considerable questions about nuclear weapons – how powerful they are and even if they can be used on a regular basis (here, here and here).

We have grave doubts about the entire nuclear narrative, beginning with the initial creation of nukes and then their use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but that they do not exist as they have been portrayed. Perhaps they are not so powerful as they are said to be. Perhaps they are more difficult to make and some of the US missile stock doesn’t actually exist.

One theory is that they can only be used at certain times of the year, in harmony with certain aspects of solar activity (here).

Another theory is, in fact, that they don’t exist at all, and we have carried an interview with a water and shipping technologist on this issue (here).

Finally, it is indisputable that most if not all of the nuclear footage released to the general public was faked. You only have to look at it to see (here).

Lookout Mountain in California was the facility that manipulated the films that were released generally (here).

Nuclear weapons have been tested extensively. But usually none of the observers were allowed close to the actual site of the test.

Additionally, there is the possibility that at least some of the test blasts were from TNT or dynamite not from a nuclear chain reaction.

The army itself created “nuclear” explosions near Hawaii in some 1960s tests using TNT and admitted as much (here).

Much more work by the “fourth estate” ought to be done to report aggressively on the history of the atomic bomb in the US and nuclear testing generally. The whole truth has not been told, not by any means.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Praetor

    The reality is! Who in their (right mind) would go to war with a nuclear power. Of course you would not assuming you are in you’re right mind and don’t want to die. If you know or believe the country dropped two nuke bombs on another country, what would make one think they wouldn’t do it again. They once called it ‘MAD’ to think such a thing.

    None of it makes since!!!

  • Steve

    Has any effort been made to interview surviving witnesses to these tests? While is to good to question any information that comes from a lying source, what we need are witnesses to the “staging” of these events, witnesses that can attest to the faking of the actual tests. The links you give fail to support the claims in the article such as: “Finally, it is indisputable that most if not all of the nuclear footage released to the general public was faked. You only have to look at it to see …” a link to one video does NOT establish the general validity of your statement. It is just one video. If fake models are being used in some scenes (not sure if this one video shows that), does that “prove” that nukes do not work as advertised? If this one video fails to show the blinding flash of light does that mean this test was not real or that the flash did not occur during the test? It only shows that this particular footage does not have the flash filmed. Many others do show such a flash.

    The early tests in the pacific that show substantial structural damage to navy ships at the closer ranges. They don’t look fake to me. Where are the links to the science tests that show that nuclear chain reactions can only function at certain times, or certain environmental conditions? Where are the experiments that demonstrate that nuclei can only be fissioned by slow moderated neutrons and not fast neutrons, or that only under some specific unusual environmental conditions can a critical cascade nuclear reaction be sustained?

    Nuclear physics is a rather thoroughly established science based on numerous science experiments. Are you claiming that all experiments that support your position are being hidden, if not where are they? Those are the kinds of links from accredited scientists I would like to see. WHO on the Daily Bell staff takes this position on nukes? Is there consensus?

    Sorry, but I think you need to be much more thorough in your presentation of this subject to refute what I have seen that seems genuine and conclusive to me. DB taking this position on nukes appears to me as reckless and science ignorant and tends to harm the general credibility of DB. So again, do you all agree on this position or do you lack consensus?

    • georgesilver

      Daily Bell is just stating the obvious using Occam’s Razor. If nuclear weapons existed then they would have been used after the Japanese hoax.
      Do NOT bother to infer morals because in war there are NO morals. The nuclear club is just that. I nice little fear club of the ‘elite’ to keep the peasants (us) under control. So if you believe nuclear weapons exist please present your exact plans how they work but what ever you do don’t tell us they are secret.

      • Steve

        Yes I believe they exist, and no I am not able to give you exact plans. My failure to do so does not prove or refute the case. Valid science experiments that are repeatable can establish what does and does not work in nature. Are all such basic nuclear physics experiments classified? Are there any public results that bear upon the issue? I do not know.

        Georgesilver are you an accredited nuclear physicist? Can you give me an exact scientific explanation why nuclear bombs can only work under special environmental circumstances, and not under general circumstances? If not,
        aren’t you willing to spend a fortune and spend multiple years of your life in related study so you can prove to me the exact scientifically valid explanation as to why they don’t work as advertised?

        If I had such a fortune I would not spend it on such experiments or such work, and I don’t expect you to either. I do not trust any institution that survives though armed aggression, so I do not trust what any government says. What I do trust is natural law, which can be observed and understood. So for this particular subject I am looking for results that are repeatable from careful observations of nature that also support the assertion. So I again ask for pertinent test/experiment results to support or refute the validity of nuclear weapons function as asserted. DB is asserting something about nukes but has not offered documentation of repeatable results based on natural law.

        • mary

          Why are you putting the burden of proof on georgesilver? Exactly how does one go about proving something doesn’t exist? And if you don’t trust what any gov’t says, why do you trust the USG about nukes?

          The burden of proof is on the gov’t to prove that nukes exist. DB has written many articles over the past couple of months on the nuclear bomb hoax, including many links. You might want to read them all with the many links before you post again.

          • Steve

            As I mentioned before, I trust what can be demonstrated by natural law. If it is DB’s assertion that nukes only work under restricted environmental conditions, this could be demonstrated by a failure to achieve a chain reaction under all but those restricted conditions. A null result in an experiment like this (no chain reaction) would be valuable evidence in support of their assertion. Whether nukes are real or not, plutonium exits, uranium exits, and a null result in such experiments or tests would be supporting evidence for DB’s case. If chain reactions occur as the physics literature claims, then it is logical to assume (as Einstein did) that nuclear weapons as claimed by governments are possible to produce. What is always valuable as hard evidence is the tests and experiments that demonstrate how the laws of nature work under particular circumstances.

          • The New York Times wrote in 2015 that film of nuclear tests had been “treated” at the Lookout Mountain Los Angeles film studio. So yes, any footage on the ‘Net is “touched up” considerably (ie: faked).

          • Steve

            Thanks for that info DB. I think you have made your case that US Gov distorts in order to enhance the terror effects of nuclear devices in the public’s mind. I think that was well demonstrated also by the transcripts that you cited above showing them wanting to enhance the casualty figures of the two atomic bomb effects. Those who live by theft can of course be counted on to lie and deceive if they conclude it furthers their agenda.

            As to if larger thermonuclear devices actually work as advertised, I hope you can show documentation of them faking the results of the tests or experiments that show that nuclear chain reactions do not occur as they claim they do. Otherwise if the science still supports the nukes then for what ever reason they faked some footage, the terrible truth of destruction of civilization from nuclear war still stands.

            We already know from Chernobyl and Fukushima that just plain old nuclear reactors using less than weapons grade refining can be made to blow up containment when moderation fails for what ever reason, and this spews large amounts of deadly radiation and makes areas of the earth uninhabitable for long periods of time. So you don’t need the blast and flash, because the toxic long term effects are enough to destroy our civilization if enough of these explosions occur and are evenly distributed. It logically follows that a purer concentration of uranium or plutonium nuclei will result in a more vigorous and energetic reaction under similar circumstances. This alone very strongly implies that larger or purer concentrations would react even more destructively.

            So you see we already have two “experiments” in the public domain (3 if you count Three Mile Island) that clearly attest to the extreme dangers of these types of reactions, regardless of weather nukes “work” as advertised with quick complete fission/fusion of most of the material.

          • Steve

            I hope you can agree with me at this point that practically speaking, you gain little for your overall argument by also suggesting that nukes may not work as advertised. The case for government deception does not need to include such a claim. What you end up doing is harming your overall credibility by making claims that people with scientific backgrounds will find ridiculous. I want the mission of DB to be a success! The only way you will prevail with those who trust the laws of nature on such a technical claim is to present test/experiments that supports your statements about how nature works. Given the level of influence of those with scientific backgrounds, your present unsupported position seems counterproductive. Please either give the supporting evidence that passes scientific muster, or drop that part of your claim that you have not proven. Some of the material a researcher will find who follows your links appears to most people as ridiculous (even if they turn out to be largely true). Why include the links pointing to the work of the New Zealand airline pilot? Are you prepared to present a thorough scientific demonstration as to why “lay lines” or geo-grid points, or what ever this guy is arguing relate to nuclear chain-reactions?

          • You’re kidding right? This is an entity, the Pentagon, that has mislaid $8 trillion dollars and has been lying about its nuclear program from the very beginning. The ONE reporter allowed to write on the program from the Pentagon’s perspective was later put on the Pentagon’s payroll. Not a single “witness” to nuclear blasts have been allowed to inspect the blast sites beforehand from what we can tell.

            As the New York Times reported, the blasts that were made public on film were heavily manipulated by the Lookout Mountain film studio. The Pentagon also admits to at least one set of explosions in Hawaii that were generated by TNT. If they can create nuclear-looking explosions from TNT, what stops them from doing more of that?

            And why did the Pentagon lie about the results of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions and seek to dramatize their effects? And why did the Pentagon and Japan pass laws providing the death penalty for anyone who spoke about the initial nuclear attacks? And why are the films of other tests so obviously faked – even above and beyond Lookout Mountain manipulations?

            What about the missing squadron that was sent to a town near Hiroshima on August 6th that had already been firebombed twice. The obvious inference is that this was the squadron of 66 bombers that actually set Hiroshima afire. We could go on …

            We’ve written numerous articles on it and cited numerous facts that cast considerable doubt on the nuclear narrative as the Pentagon has produced it. The “science” you speak of may or may not be accurate but in any case we’ve never stated that there are no nukes or that they do not blow up.

            What we have pointed out is that the Pentagon lies congenitally and continually about these programs and has been doing so for decades since inception. You can argue this point as much as you want but it doesn’t change the facts as we’ve been pointing them out.

            And we are not alone in this. We’ve just raised the decibel level of the dialogue. The Pentagon wants another trillion to update its nuclear weapons systems. Before they get it, they should have to provide an open test with witnesses that show conclusively that these weapons operate as advertised. They’ve never done this so far as we know. Not once. Why not?

            Given the lies surrounding this program, before they get their trillion they should provide an unimpeachable evidence for those who increasingly doubt their veracity and to provide the historical record with a credible illustration of nuclear weapons can do.

            You speak about DB’s “credibility?” Given all that has been discovered about the Pentagon’s nuclear narrative, which is filled with half-truths and outright dissembling, we would suggest that the Pentagon has a far bigger credibility problem than we do.

          • Steve

            Oh and I have read many of the links. I have not found one yet that presents evidence of such test/experiments. My understanding of Hiroshima is that at most, 67,000 – 76,000 of the casualties there after a 6 months of tracking could be attributable to actual blast/radiation-fallout/flash effects. It was only 15 Kilo-tons. The resulting fire storm appears to have been an important factor.

            But sadly you don’t need hundreds of nukes to destroy America. If they do work as advertised, just a few at high altitude would result in EMP damage that would shut down our electric grid irrecoverably for the long term, which would result in something like 85% of Americans being dead within a year. Most probably if the grid goes down, dozens of our nuclear reactors will melt down and explode like we saw at Fukushima. If they do work only under limited environmental conditions, if those conditions exits at any time such that the attack may take place, then the result will still be the same.

          • Steve

            The cited transcript for deaths at Hiroshima, if you include deaths from exposure to fallout and or resulting cancers were “67 or 76 [thousand]” that was totaled after 6 months. The 2,000 death estimate was just an estimate of initial deaths due to blast, thermal radiation and short term radiation exposure.

loading
Sign up now and join our exclusive international network for free-market thinkers
Privacy Assured: We will NEVER share your personal information.