Mysore Mallige Coloured

atomic bombs do not exist: Part 2

5) Hiroshima and Nagasaki

How to explain the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the atomic bombs do not exist? It's simple. The Americans have done a conventional firebombing, as they had done shortly before Tokyo.

Since almost all houses were made of wood, it was very easy to destroy entire cities with incendiary bombs. That's why we chose these cities.

But thanks to photos taken after the bombing, we can see many inconsistencies with what should be observed after an atomic bombing.

As noted by a guy with the nickname sandokan, the roads are perfectly intact on the photos taken after the bombing. However, given the power of the explosion, they should not be. A good portion of them would be damaged and also covered by debris sent around by the explosion mainly near the epicenter.

Photo of Hiroshima, the streets are intact, and there is no the bulky debris (click the photo to have it in larger format)

When you see a photo of Tokyo after conventional firebombing, we see the same thing. The streets are intact.

Photo of Tokyo, ditto, no debris in the streets

To stay in Tokyo, we see that, generally speaking, the pictures after the bombing of Tokyo are perfectly similar to those taken after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the types of destruction are the same.

On many pictures Hiroshima or Nagasaki, we see the beams or small pieces of wood lying on the ground that did not flaming at all. This time we are told that the city was largely destroyed by fire and the ground temperature was 4000 degrees Celsius. It is illogical with a fire caused by burning blast of an atomic bomb, which would have affected all buildings indiscriminately. It's much more normal if they were incendiary bombs. In this case, there are bound to areas not affected by the bombs, and the fire to other buildings would not spread.

Full small unburned wood everywhere. On the second picture, the plant seems to have been destroyed by fire, but there are plenty of unburned wood behind the horse.

On a photograph shows a shadow of a person and his ladder on a wooden wall. It is the shadow would have done the flash on the wall. This shadow is black. But on another photograph shows the shadow of the parapet of a bridge would have done the flash on the bridge itself. The problem is that there, the shade is white. So once the flash is a black shadow, another time he made a white shadow. It's completely anything (otherwise it is not why the wooden wall would not have burnt with the heat). It reproduces a photograph of a valve on a pipe. His shadow is black. Then, on another photograph shows the shadow of leaves on a tower made by flash. The shade is white. And of course, leaves, and the tower have been miraculously preserved. They were not burned. It is on it reinforced the idea that it was an atomic bomb that destroyed the two cities. But, too bad, liars have done too much.

A white shadow, then a black shadow, even a black shadow, and finally, again a white shadow. In short, anything.

Then, an atomic bomb is supposed to create a huge black sooty fungus. It would have spread throughout the city. Or is the black soot on the photos? You do not see anywhere.

should also see buildings, trees and pylons lying in a circular from the center of the explosion. For example, after the volcanic eruption of Mount St Helens in the USA in 1980, it was evident in some places the trees of the forest that were all lying in the direction of the blast. But here we see nothing of it.

Photos of trees flattened by the volcanic explosion of Mount St. Helens in 1980. They are all lying in the same direction.

Logically, the very fact that we have the photos taken the day of the explosion, or maximum a day or two days should have been incompatible with a nuclear explosion. Under what is known of radioactivity, it darkens the picture. It also is how Becquerel discovered radioactivity. So just saw the radioactivity after a nuclear explosion, it should not be any photos obtained so soon after. Some will say that the goal is only open time of the photo. But obviously the radiation passes through the camera. We recall that for protection from radiation post-explosion, you have to put in at least 1 meter of concrete. So, as the photographer should have stayed several hours to take his photos, his film would necessarily have been completely blackened by radioactive radiation.

That photographer could have taken his picture should have very little credibility as well. Because we are told that during the first days after an explosion, stay a few hours exposed to radioactivity causes nausea and vomiting, see death. So, the photographer would most likely not continue to do his photos.

Yes, but it had pictures easier to convince people. So officials of lying could hardly do without.

And then, just as it was not a bomb, there was no problem that photographers make photos just after the bombing. And then he would have been difficult to refuse publication.

There is evidence that survivors also are not covered in radioactive ash, so we are told that the boom of the 1954 Castle Bravo, the Japanese fishing boat the "Lucky Dragon No. 5 "had been covered (it is said that the ash had fallen for hours).

But obviously, as it does not fit all, we are told that in fact, radioactive dust is rising high , and suddenly, there was very little that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which is what is said on Wikipedia).

But this version does not hold, since, as the bombs exploded at about 500/600 meters, much of the soot of the bomb was pushed down. So even if a party is raised then because of the heat, most have not been entrained in the column of the fungus. She therefore could not be driven several miles high. So it goes back to the original problem, there should be radioactive dust everywhere (which would otherwise cause the ailments and deaths), but there is none.

And besides, if some of the radioactive ash was driven in height, it would fall in areas of more or less bordering those cities. Towns and villages should have known of serious health problems. But we are not talking about this stuff. And we did not talk about because there was simply no radioactive fallout ash.

This story of the dust that is mounted too high to fall is here also contradicts the experience of the boat Lucky Dragon . Here, there was a bomb of several megatons, the mushroom cloud climbed even higher, but we are told that the radioactive soot fell on the boat for hours.

an aside, it also found a contradiction about the bomb Tsar Bomba (57 Mt, the largest bomb ever exploded). We are told that there was little radiation to the ground, because the dust is rising too high. But again, it contradicts the experience of Lucky Dragon and Castle Bravo (who was 15 Mt, so not as powerful as the bomb Tsar Bomba, but not very far).

So there would be any of the radioactive ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, we never heard any photographer that the photos had been erased, nor any journalist about photographers not returned because of radiation.

Someone with the nickname "17 november" reported the testimony of the chief inspector for the secretariat to the U.S. war on these cities, Major Alexander de Seversky . He has studied many Japanese cities have been bombed. Each time, he flew first cities to have an aerial view of the result of the bombing, then there was an investigation into the city. Each time, he found similar damage in the type of bombs used. He thought he saw something different in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But this was not the case. The damage was exactly the same as those he had observed elsewhere when conventional bombing. There was not completely empty area in the center of the supposed explosion. The metal structures of buildings located at the exact center of the explosion were intact. The hospital in Hiroshima, just 1 mile (1.6 km) from the center of the explosion was too intact. Only the windows had been blown, and people inside were not even injured. The biggest damage was not done by the blast of an explosion, but by fire. As I noted, too, Seversky noticed that there were many pieces of wood that had remained intact, which meant that for Seversky buildings were not burned by the heat of the explosion, but because of fires being lit after. This explains everything and he has not burned remains of many pieces of wood intact. Seversky but does not call into question the existence of atomic bomb. We can go further than he is thinking that if there were areas spared by the fire of the city (hence the unburned wood), because the bombing had been done with conventional incendiary bombs (and perhaps also non-incendiary bombs). As a result, some areas were spared because there was no incendiary bomb fell. Seversky but nevertheless we would have noticed the same result with a fleet of 200 B-29 loaded with incendiary bombs.

Someone with the nickname "letthereaderunderstand" on the forum abovetopsecret analyzed a number of "testimonials "Japanese supposedly present for the bombing. And as he points out, all are very emotional and very verbose. When you ask about this kind of event, a normal individual responds with answers relatively short and very rarely built. While there, the answers are dozens of sentences. It is thus clear evidence totally invented.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread421637/pg14


6) Some objections

Obviously, when the first texts appeared questioning the existence of atomic bombs, quickly, officers of intelligence-cons have tried to deflect the blow and said that videos would actually be rigged, but the bombs actually exist. According to this version, the videos are faked because governments would not we see the real.

is obviously laughable, because if governments had atomic bombs, they certainly bothers not to show videos rigged. They show real video to clearly demonstrate their power. But it is a technique that is now developing among agents operating on the net to counter or deflect blows by those who reveal embarrassing secrets. We recognize that this stuff is true (that the videos here are cans), but soon to say that in fact it does not change the main (that bombs exist).

I will talk more about a specific post, but it is also the theory of abiotic oil. For example, we say that only a portion of oil is abiotic. Or, they say, OK, oil is abiotic, but it does not change the fact that we will enter into depletion within a few years. This is because, firstly, estimates of reserves are believed to be correct, and because other hand, oil, even if it really is renewed, would do so at a rate 1000 times too slow to supply current consumption.

Regarding the huge amount of material in the cloud, some have thought it would be the dust of the ground which would be sent up to the heat, and that this would happen especially when the explosion is low (for example, made the ground). Which would negate the criticism I made earlier that there would be creation of matter, and that a nuclear reaction would not produce this kind of smoke.

But already, there would never be enough dust to do that. Then, as the explosion pushes the dust around the sides, all the dust originally present would have been ejected on the sides and therefore should not be sucked into the column of heat.

Moreover, what we see in the fungus does not resemble at all to dust. It clearly looks like black smoke from a chemical reaction of carbon products of style gasoline, coal, wood or rubber. Here it is clearly of napalm.

And we do not see why dust catches fire, then that is what happens in the cloud in question (there are huge flame). That dust is vitrified, ok, it ignites, it would be anything.

Moreover, there are plenty of explosions at high altitude with this cloud of smoke (in addition to having the form of a mushroom). For example, those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. De Baca or the bomb, Operation Hardtrack II, which was only 2.2 knots, and exploded to 500 m. Newton or test, operation Plumbbob of 12 kt, directed at 500m. Buster Dog or test, Operation Buster Jangle, 21 kt, is at 470 m. Moth or the bomb, Operation Teapot, 2 kt, is 100 m. Etc, etc. ... So, even explosions in height (can not not benefit from the suction effect of soil dust) result in the creation of an enormous amount of smoke.

Bomb De Baca (over there, most of the mushroom is white, eliminating the possibility that either the dust of the desert).

And for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it was not a dusty desert, but towns. So the ground, there was no dust can be this kind of column. And of course, the buildings did not have time to burn fast enough to create this column of smoke is observed few seconds after the explosion.

In addition, just at the beginning of the explosion, well before the column of smoke rises due to heat (ie, when the explosion continues to go down), there is already an enormous amount of Black smoke and flames. So it can not be dust.

More importantly, there is an element that contradicts this. We are told that for one of the first bombs tested (the bomb Trinity), the soil was vitrified instantaneously by the heat of the bomb (bomb that exploded almost at the ground). The vitrified material is called trinitite. So it is impossible that the fungus has been made of dust, since we also said that it was already glazed. And since there is no reason why such a thing to be otherwise spent for other bombs that exploded near the ground, that argument falls apart.

In the same vein, I'm already imagining an objection well as how delusional some carbon from the air being ignited. But CO2 accounts for only 0.0375% of the air. So even with a complex mechanism of separation of CO2 from the rest of the air, the CO2 would never have allowed to obtain as dense smoke.


7) The reasons lie


There are several motivations for the invention of atomic bombs.

1) It keeps people in fear of reprisals if they ever came to nuclear to rebel against the world clique that governs us.

2) It has also helped keep people in fear of nuclear war for several decades. It therefore allowed to occupy the minds of the people for part of that time. This will include taking the form of numerous "affairs": the Cuban missile crisis, crisis of the installation of missiles in Europe in the late 70s, more generally, turmoil the view whenever the Russian armies moved an eyelash, discussion related to U.S. missile shield program in years 70 and 80, Rosenbergs' trial that supposedly passed nuclear bomb technology to the USSR Mordecai Vanunu martyr who "revealed" the existence of Israeli nuclear program, etc., etc. ... Business course all the more cans than the other (Vanunu was in fact probably a Mossad agent whose role was to convince the possession of nuclear bombs by Israel).

3) It had to help put in place as opposition blocks west and is as to why we did not fight. With atomic bombs, it was easy to explain (the balance of terror). Whereas without the atomic bombs, it would have seemed strange.

Above that, since Germany was demilitarized, and that the armies of Spain and Italy were not worth much, there would have been that France to fight against all the armies of Soviet bloc in the front line. So without the atomic bombs, it would have been child's play for the USSR to conquer all of Europe.

4) nuclear energy to have an abundant source of energy and very little expensive. And that was bad for the masters of the world. In addition to that they retain control, it was necessary that states may need to renew the raw material for their source of energy so often. What might not be the case as regards nuclear energy if the fast breeder reactor was established. It is true that a number of states are rich in coal, and that is their main source of electrical energy. So they have no problem of supply of raw materials to fuel their power plants. But this is not the case for many countries. It helps to maintain a hierarchy of wealth in the country. Some countries are richer than others, we can assign an economic role in some countries (such countries will be rich and others poor). Equal access to energy smooths out differences in wealth. And that, it is not good for the world masters.

Furthermore, the development of nuclear energy for electricity generation could spill over consumption of oil through the Fischer-Tropsch process. The coal-rich states could then have used it, not for heating or to generate electricity, but as alternative to oil in the transportation field. Oil consumption would have sharply reduced the coup. And in addition, these countries would become energy independent.

So, lying on the existence of atomic bombs has from the outset to be a milestone for the future on civil nuclear energy. The existence of atomic bombs for driving the fear of things nuclear, from a negative to nuclear power. Intensifying this fear then, it could limit its use more and more. And that's what happened. In the 70s, was focused increasingly on nuclear risks, stirring briskly fears from atomic bombs and those related to civil nuclear. Then, as we have seen on this site, we gave a reality to the fear of sabotaging civilian nuclear nuclear plants at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In the end, we managed to reduce to a very minimum the portion of the energy in the nuclear world. In addition, having been an enthusiastic early on nuclear energy to wash away any hint of hostility towards this source of energy. The masters of the world could say 'look, we were enthusiastic about nuclear energy at the start. We wanted to develop nuclear power. But the political influence of environmentalists was that we were forced to stop development. "

5) Here, I make a hypothesis: it may have served to lie about the nature of atomic energy. It may be possible that uranium does not work at all as we are told. Perhaps in fact there is no fission and chain reaction. Maybe uranium heats without any reaction of this type and the reaction lasts much longer we're told. It would mean that nuclear power could work with the same uranium for perhaps 1000 years instead 3 years. It would change everything. The energy really not cost anything. The theory of atomic bombs validates the theory of fission. And the theory of uranium fission implies that wears when used in a nuclear power plant. If uranium does not wear out, or very slowly, it would mean that energy would cost nothing. And energy that does not cost anything, it is not good at all for the masters of the world. Because of the sudden, any country could be independent in terms of electrical energy (and possibly oil for those with coal).

6) And perhaps that behind it there is the done to prevent the individualization of production. If no fission, it means that there is no danger of melting or explosion of a nuclear power plant heart. Maybe so that each home could have a nuclear power plant low-power, and without danger (by having a lead plate for protection of radioactivity). So, people would become independent on energy supply. And that would be even more dangerous for the clique that governs us. Or, what would the villages that could become independent (and in addition, for an enormous time). With the atomic bomb, there is the idea of possible merger a heart of Central and there is all the negative side attached to nuclear energy. At least with a plant owned by the state, the risk of loss of control is limited. And also, with the atomic bomb, we can ban people from owning a nuclear power station on behalf of the individual risk of proliferation of nuclear material and therefore the creation of atomic bombs by uncontrolled groups. Without the atomic bombs, there is a major reason less to prevent people from owning individual plant. Or, if one considers that the waste problem remains significant, the villages at least, may eventually become independent (but if the fuel lasts hundreds of years, the waste problem becomes much less important). It causes a danger of too much autonomy.

7) In the Annex, it allows time to time designate a new enemy by saying he will soon possess nuclear bombs, or that it already has, and it represents a threat (Iraq, Iran, North Korea).

8) It enables Israel to pretend she has a weapon making it invincible. It transformed this country into a sanctuary inviolable. For those who struggle against Zionism, it can give them the fear of the "Samson option" where in case of victory of anti-Zionist, Israel's leaders would react feeling lost in a massive nuclear attack. And we also note that the bomb was created around 1945, some years before the creation of Israel, and that the supposed bomb designers were almost all Jews Zionists. Moreover, it helps explain the fact that Arab countries have stopped the attack after the mid-70s. Whereas otherwise it would explain why these countries did not attempt to attack afterwards. And then we would see that these countries are actually puppets.

The site of the first who spoke (well, apparently): http://www.showdalua.com

Pinnacle Pctv 150e 55e Vista 32 B

The atomic bombs are not

What does it as evidence that nuclear bombs exist? Videos of explosions of atomic bombs, and the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in 1945. We will see none of this evidence does the road, quite the contrary.

1) Videos: general findings

What we see on these videos?

Already, the video of the first atomic bombs, what we see is a big flash followed by a dazzling black fungus (consisting clearly dense soot) killing at least 4 or 5 km high over at least 1 km wide, and much more for bombs H.



Already, there it shows that atomic bombs do not exist (and here we see that when we have more mental rut, one stroke, we realizes the obvious that it was not two seconds earlier).

An atomic bomb is within 3 m long and 1 wide. It is absolutely impossible that something so small amount of smoke generates greater. If we could burn the tires put on each other, all being 3m high, even if all the smoke was issued at once, we get a ridiculous amount compared to what you get with an atomic bomb (a column of dense smoke could be 100 meters high and 10 wide).

And yet, it's obviously not all the bomb explodes, but only its fissile material. Now for a bomb like Hiroshima (33 kt), there were only 50 kg of uranium. Because uranium has a density of 19 tonnes/m3, it means we had a cube of only about 14 cm square. Burn a piece of tire about 14 cm square. A priori, it should not make a mushroom of smoke very dense 5 km in height 1 wide. Especially in addition, we are told that only 1 kg of uranium fission.

The amount of smoke as compared to the size of the bomb, there is clearly creation of matter. Since the atomic bombs still obey the laws of physics usually creation of matter is not possible. So it is clearly not a bomb.

Moreover, the presence of such a quantity of soot is impossible because of another element. The smoke is unburnt. Moreover, this kind of unburned occurs during a chemical reaction of elements containing carbon. And it is an incomplete chemical reaction. Yet here he is not a chemical reaction, but an atomic reaction obtained from uranium. So we do not see why there would be unburnt. In addition, the atomic reaction is supposed to be almost perfect and transform almost all of the fissionable material in this energy. While the presence of thick black smoke like it's on video clearly shows a chemical reaction of very poor quality, and a chemical reaction from a lot of carbon-containing material.

Especially it is said that the temperature reaches 1 million degrees in the center of the explosion. A 1 million degrees, it should not be a lot of unburnt. And ground with a bomb that exploded 600 meters, like Hiroshima, the temperature is 3000/4000 degrees Celsius. So, again, the unburnt should be fairly limited.

So already from there, it is clear that what we watch these videos, they are not nuclear explosions, but explosions of dynamite and a mixture of fuel, probably napalm (invented in 1942). That's what it looks like. That's why there is such a black smoke. And temperature at the center of the explosion should be about 900 C °, as fuel for explosions (hence the yellow-orange flames). For more videos, given the kind of white dome at the beginning of the explosion, it must be explosions of gas with spraying it on a large volume before the explosion.

Ah yes, the designers of lies certainly wanted to impress the people. So, a mushroom of smoke purporting to be so huge, what better place to impress? The problem is that at the same time, when one begins to have doubts about the existence of nuclear bombs, it appears as big as hoax the nose on your face.

Once established it, other elements are easily explained.

Scores explosions allegedly held aloft . The problem is that an explosion at high altitude has a round shape, the shape of a football what. This is the case of explosions at fireworks, or when a missile exploded at altitude, or for flak, etc. ... But the explosions we are seeing on the videos do not form a ball, but the shape of a mushroom.

course, one could say that the size of the explosion was too large relative to the altitude where it exploded, This would have given the explosions with the shape of a mushroom. But no. Already, we are told that on wikipedia the Hiroshima explosion was 400 m in diameter and it exploded at an altitude of 580m. So if it was 400 m in diameter, 580 m in height, there was ample room for an explosion into a ball.

But in addition, numerous explosions that were made at high altitude had low power and still had the form of a mushroom. The bomb De Baca , for example, taken October 26, 1958, was only 2.2 kt and exploded from a balloon at a height of 500m. This is also true of the bomb Santa Fe of 1.3 kt (500 m too, October 30, 1958), or a bomb Socorro, 6 kt (22 October 1958, 500m), or a bomb Franklin, 140 tons (June 2, 1957, 100m), or the bomb Moth, 2 kt (February 22, 1955, 100m), or Telsa , 7 kt (1 March 1955, 100m), or Hornet, 4 kt (March 12, 1955, 100m), or Bee, 8 kt (March 22, 1955, 165m).

course, the fact that the explosion is the shape of a ball because there is no fungus that forms afterwards.

It is therefore clear that these explosions were actually made ground. That's why it is shaped like a mushroom. The explosion was initially a dome shape, then the top of the dome rises and gives the form of a mushroom.

And it makes sense, because given the amount of explosives needed to give an impression of large bomb, it was impossible to obtain a convincing result with the air burst of a single large bomb. We had many conventional bombs exploding simultaneously. And so, the explosives could be placed at ground level.

Especially the airburst of a large bomb would inevitably have been filmed from a distance. So even without any benchmark for an idea of the distance scale, it would have been difficult to give an impression of enormous explosion.

is also why we have the big flash at the beginning of the explosion, during which one sees nothing. In fact, the role of this flash is to achieve a fade to white in order to avoid being realizes that the explosion took place on the ground (where we are told that the explosion was done in altitudes of course). It can not start the vision of the explosion when the fungus has already reached a certain height. Otherwise, we would see the first explosions on the ground, then at the dome Soil showing clearly that it is a terrestrial explosion.

And then, the purpose of this fade to white was certainly also hides the fact that it is the explosion of several bombs simultaneously (at least in the early days, when special effects were not very developed). Even with some simultaneity, we should probably see easily that there were several bombs (especially with the still fairly crude technology of the time). With the fade to white at the beginning, it removes this problem.

And since, supposedly made for explosions at high altitude, we had to do a fade to white to hide the fact they were made on the ground, he had to keep the fade to white when the tests were made on the ground or relatively near the ground.

designers this lie has certainly said that if we did believe that some of these explosions were airlines, fewer people would doubt the official version, since it is effectively impossible to obtain as large an explosion at high altitude. Whereas if they were told they were all made on the ground, some evil spirits could say it was only a conventional explosion.

course, the explosions of fuel are not the size of a nuclear explosion. But on video, we never a benchmark for determining the size of the explosion. So we can say what you want about the size of the explosion is impossible to verify.

That said, it would be quite possible to get something a bit closer, by placing bombs and napalm on a circle 200 meters in diameter (see above). If they had a blast radius of 100 m, it was ultimately a fungus of perhaps 200 m in diameter at its center. So, something impressive enough from far to convince a potential observer.

As stated above, we can see that on some videos made later we had to move to a different bomb technology. Given the white halo around the explosion, he seems to be a gas explosion.

Ca, are the findings we can do on these videos in general. Then, depending on the various videos, there are different bidonnage fairly easy to identify.


2) bidonnage more specific videos

On the video of the explosion of the bomb Grable (Operation Upshot-Knothole), driven by a gun, 25 May 1953 on the site Nevada (15 kilo tonnes explosion at 170 m altitude), there are trees that were planted for the occasion, in order, supposedly, to determine the impact of the atomic bomb. A priori, they are 400 or 800 meters from the explosion. Indeed, trees are affected by the wind after 12 seconds (from 1mn12 on video, up to 1m24). Assuming that the wind of the explosion goes 500 km / h, it means that in 12 seconds, it is 1.6 km. But as the video is taken in slow motion, one may think it is at least 2 times slower. So the distance would be 800m, or even 400 m if the tape is slowed down 4 times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxY04itQGA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_9RBT2sQ78&feature=related
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=213

However, while in addition, we see that a house literally exploded in the alleged bomb blast (in the 44th and between 1 sec min and 1 min 10), enough for these trees (see video Declassified U.S. Nuclear Test Film # 55 to 8mn05 in the link) does not break in the wind. They just bend. Hello something fishy.

hindsight, we see some that are broken. But at the moment, we do not see any break. So they should almost all be given their size, and saw what happened at home. So we can say that those seen after split have been shot just after the fact, in order to give more credibility to video. It sure no broken tree, it would not credible at all.

Note also that the trees do not ignite, while the heat generated by the atomic bomb is supposed to burn everything. In Hiroshima, we are told that the heat was on the ground C ° 3000/4000 and up to 2 km from the explosion, everything was broken or burned. And for the Trinity bomb, we are told that the floor was glazed over a diameter of 800 meters. It is unclear how a bomb can vitrify the soil of 800 m in diameter, and let otherwise undamaged trees. Especially since they are pines, therefore, particularly trees that burn easily. However, in retrospect, we see that these trees have needles perfectly intact on the branches (see why Declassified U.S. Nuclear Test Film # 55, 11mn24). Moreover, given the wind generated, a lot of hands have been stolen. And on the video Declassified U.S. Nuclear Test # 55, it is clear they are all there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8z94MXo9M&feature=related

Another thing that is wrong in this video is the height of the bottom of the mushroom cloud. Video on trees, the cloud is very low. However, given the explosion in question, it should be much higher. It should completely cover the tree . And as the trees were about 400 or 800 meters from the impact point, the cloud would have had time to mount a lot. Especially since the videos taken from a distance of atomic explosions, the bottom of the mushroom is quite high. In fact, given the proximity of trees from the center of the explosion, they could be squarely in the column of the fungus. Or, rather they are at 800 m, they could find themselves in the huge cloud of the lower fungus. Therefore, the cloud should be very high and close trees. But here it remains very low, up to 5 meters.

But knowing that it is bogus, we understand the reason of the thing. He had seen many trees so that the video is any impact. If we had not seen a cloud of dust or smoke, it would have been less impressive and convincing, although it would have been more realistic.

will say that it is the shockwave that hit the trees and the cloud that has not happened yet, so it's normal that trees are not yet covered by the cloud of smoke. But no, because the portion of the video where we see the beginning of the explosion ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM , Nuke lees), we see that the cloud is formed from the 3rd or 4th second. Then it flows at least either 5 or 10 seconds (depending on the level of idle video) on the piece of video where you see the trees. So from the time trees are affected, and given the distance they are from the center of the explosion, they should be covered by the cloud. And anyway, otherwise you see the trees in the smoke while the shock wave has already passed (even the smoke comes back). We also see this video (1mn11): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxY04itQGA&feature=related . So it could be that the mushroom cloud of smoke.

Moreover, the fact that the cloud would go back indicates that it must be done in an explosion of conventional explosives that exploded not far from the tree. If this was indeed the atomic cloud, it would have continued his journey.

That said, if he had just stopped there, there would have been another reason for they do not see the trees. Indeed, the bottom of the fungus is at its maximum height at its outer limit.

The wind that comes back is also something you find at other times. In the 43rd second of this video (linked Nuke), we see the wind that destroyed the house back right after. At the 50th second is a kind of electrical equipment that sees the wind go back just after touchdown. Ditto for another house at 1mn. And of course, again, the cloud remains relatively low and relatively sparse for us to continue to see these elements perfectly.

Other stuff that does not stick on a video of the Teapot (at 2mn53 at 3mn09, and 8mn07 bomb Met), are seen overturned vehicles. Problem tires do not melt .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3q10YnfJhTA&feature=related (operation teapot part 2 / 3))

Moreover, these vehicles do not seem covered with ashes, or simply desert dust (even if the database is sometimes taken in the sand). Example:

No ashes or dirt on the tire (which, incidentally, is intact while the rest of the vehicle is totally destroyed)

In general, on a lot of videos showing returned or destroyed vehicles, tires do not seem particularly damaged. They do not melt, as has been seen, but in addition, they are not shredded by the blast.

Wheels unmelted. And the vehicle is returned, but the wheels are not torn and have not melted

In particular, 3mn06 the previous video was a vehicle that is totally destroyed, but the tires, they are still intact .


And on it, http://www.archive.org/details/a-bomb_blast_effects was the same (completely destroyed the vehicle and tires intact) at 6mn26, 6mn31, 6mn52, and 7 minutes.

On another video showing the effects of a nuclear explosion on a wooden house, one sees virtually explode in shock. So the house had to be relatively near the center of the explosion. We then show images of debris taken after the fact. Problem, apparently no debris burned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cLhOge2PcU

This
while on another video (rare nuclear test footage), we see at the 40th second a big wooden hut ignite. Then of course, we say that the blast may have extinguished the fire starting. But this is not what we are told to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So normally the timber would have continued to burn. And he's also done to the house of the previous example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpbCZ8QRpEg

In this video, it was a mannequin in tissue that is slightly burned. Oddly, the bottom is not burned, so there is no reason why he was spared. Furthermore, it has been burned, normally it should have also caught in the blast. But it does not look particularly ragged (he is a little but not much compared to the power of the blast).

http://www.archive.org/details/a-bomb_blast_effects

The top is burnt, but not down

Another problem in the explosion in Baker 1946 (22 kilo tons, exploded 30 meters underwater at Bikini Atoll), clouds do not move, while it is obviously clouds of medium height (not more than 6000 meters, 1000 meters and probably rather Having regard to the type of clouds), and then we are told that the atomic cloud of Enola Gay (which exploded 600 meters above sea level, 35 kt) is mounted to 10,000 m altitude. So, the mushroom was problem at the height of clouds, but clouds do not move.

Moreover, another problem with the video of this bomb is just that there is a cloud of smoke. Already, for explosions in the open, it's totally abnormal. But for underwater explosions, it is even more (first video at the 52nd second, and 1mn11 1mn18). By cons, this is what happens when you create an underwater explosion of conventional bombs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCoxmru38Xs (baker test)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEeuzEi9_2c (atomic bomb does not exist 2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCoxmru38Xs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WysJdXictlg (explosion of a submarine mine)
http:/ / www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbUl046jlo8&feature=related (same thing but with more explosions and more)

On the video of the explosion Ivy Mike (first H-bomb, 10.4 Mt, Enewetak Atoll, 1 November 1952, earthling, height of the fungus: 17 km in 90 sec, 33 km 2mn 30), the dome of explosion is downright ridiculous (to 1mn41 on video data linked). It is composed of various bubbles. Anything. We are in full psychedelic.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEFXfMQ-vzQ

Moreover, towards the end of the video, the clouds get carried away. Suddenly, there is a wind dehorning cattle (not more in the direction of the explosion or even returning to the blast, it's a crosswind). All this while he does not seem to be just before the wind. And then, just before the psychedelic bubbles, there are only two or three clouds are fighting a duel, and just after, there are plenty (which move at any speed).

It was noted that there are two types of fungi. There was first the most well known type, one consisting of dense smoke and flames filled the beginning of the explosion. On the video of the first British H-bomb: C Round (November 8, 1957, explosion at 2250 m) was entitled to a white fungus apparently composed of water vapor. As we have seen, some say it's because usually, the bombs from the ground level floor dust aspire upwards and as there, the shot is at altitude, there would not this phenomenon. So, in the absence of dust, the fungus is white. But we'll see a little further what to think of history dust sucked from the ground: in short, it's not dust, but smoke. So even from high altitudes, there is no reason why the look of the fungus does not change. Especially as for many other shots in altitude, the fungus like mushrooms currents (large black smoke) and not that of the video. Briefly, the fungus Round C is inconsistent with other shots. And then there is no reason why the water vapor condenses like that, because the fungus is extremely hot. So, again, the designers of the lie wanted to do too much.

And this time, unlike the video of the explosion Baker was apparently thought to disappear some clouds (5 min 11), but so lousy. Indeed, the sky was darker then the air where it has cleared the cloud elsewhere. The techniques of image manipulation were apparently not yet developed.

Finally, whereas in the beginning, they went on a fungus that has the top end (6mn04), it is unclear why the fungus appears to be complete (it looks to go until the ground). We do not know what has suddenly made the director. Of course, as we have already seen, the fact that there is a fungus while the explosion is at altitude is not credible. An airburst DOES not the creation of a fungus, but a ball.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFRIiflSgU

On the video "French nuclear test compilation" in the 40th second, one sees what appears to be a bad trick again at clouds. These are apparently erased As the mushroom cloud ahead. Of course, one might reply that the clouds might react like that. But more likely is that they would be blown like when you blow on the cigarette smoke for example. They do not gradually effaced like that.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDtHowdjOKs

In many videos, you see soldiers move toward the center of the explosion just after it. Normally, from what we hear radiation, they would have to have severe nausea, vomiting, headaches, etc ... see, some have to die. Now we see them walk quietly, they do not seem to feel anything.

Moreover, we note that several videos where the soldiers advance towards the center of the explosion, the film's cameraman is not blackened by radiation. Yet to post some videos made by cameras explosion still, one can think that they are put in boxes protecting them from radiation, as there, since they are worn by a cameraman cameras, it does not seem possible. So, given the exposure time (one or two hours, the time to walk to the center of the explosion and back), and given the amount of radiation, we can assume that the film would be blackened. But no, it is nickel. So maybe he should expose the film for a longer time for it to be blackened. We'll see. But given absorbed dose, one may think that it should be largely sufficient to blacken the film. When Becquerel darkened movie with uranium salts in a few days, may suggest that the dose of radiation was far below that received for 2 h near the center of a nuclear explosion.

One thing that seems to go in the direction of the official theory. On some videos, we see the soldiers supposed to get away from the explosion suddenly like a light breath. But you must know that for example, the explosion of the AZF factory tiles were broken up to 4 km from the explosion. This means that the blast had to go even further. So if the explosion was carried out using napalm bombs, it is perfectly possible that the blast was felt as far 7 or 8 km. Of course, it could also be simply and video players be bidonnée.


- To compare, here are the effects of conventional bombs

Here's what made the biggest conventional bomb now. It would be relatively easy to make one for this explosion of an atomic bomb (making it into a desert where there are no trees to give an idea of the scale).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lppFyLKDRck&feature=related




Here's another blast from this time a factory making fuel for rockets or missiles. It also sounds like the videos of atomic explosions. We also said that because of the violence of the explosion, a 6-ton vehicle was sent to 3640 feet, 1.2 km from where he was. So it was perfectly possible for vehicles to be sent away when bidonnage atomic explosions with conventional explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVr_RENAK_4&feature=related

on it (factory explosion Marshmellow ), we can see a shockwave similar to that seen in the explosion of a nuclear bomb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8HcQ1Va6RY&feature=related




is discovered on the following video project that existed during the Cold War Sailorhat ( February 6, 1965), to simulate the effects of an atomic bomb from the explosion of 500 tons of TNT. We see that the boats were severely damaged. And of course, the fungus closely resembles those of atomic explosions, coincidentally.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/sailor-hat.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXTwFsO1UvE&feature=related


3) The craters created by the atomic bombs


- Craters of the U.S. sites (site mostly in Nevada and New Mexico for Trinity)

To strengthen the credibility of their lies, designers have said something if they were large holes on the sites had supposedly made the explosions, it would eventually convince the people.

Thus, the site of Nevada, 150 miles northwest of Las Vegas, there are hundreds of craters forming between 100 and 400 meters in diameter (90% of the craters are less than 100 m) with a depth ranging from probably 10 to 50 meters. The largest are on average 250 meters in diameter with a depth of 50 meters probably (the larger crater called Sedan making 100 to 400 m depth in diameter, some sites say 200 m).

But in fact, most of these craters were made with underground explosions (according to the official version, cf. Wikipedia on Nevada Test Site) very deep. Of 928 tests, 828 were underground tests (conducted between 1951 and 1992).

only problem is that the tests in question were apparently made with very few witnesses. It has nothing to do with some testing in the open air where there may have been thousands of people attending them (well, that's the official version). So we could well make craters with dynamite and construction equipment, without witnesses. There was then no problem to submit the crater after the fact to the public by claiming it was a nuclear bomb that had been created.

The fact that there are not enough craters. There must be people in large numbers who have seen first hand that there was no crater before the explosion and there were just after.

Then, of course, there are many craters. It represents a job. But as we saw on the site of Nevada, most are not more than 100m in diameter and 10 deep. So it is not difficult to obtain with dynamite and construction equipment. Over 40 years, it was not difficult to do so much. Even with a small team, it was easy to achieve a score of craters per year.

Especially it is very possible also that some of these craters has been carried out only with underground explosions of dynamite. During the First World War, there were craters of 100 m in diameter 40m depth created with a few tons of dynamite (Lochnagar crater, 27 tons of dynamite). So it was very easy to do. And so it was not difficult to multiply the craters.

So it's true that the explosions of the first World War raised the earth up in the atmosphere (for Lochnagar, it was up to 1 km). Which would have required clearing work. But maybe the fact lent to underground nuclear explosions (creating a cavity and collapse of the soil resulting in a crater) could be achieved with conventional explosives. It would then suffice of dynamite buried less deeply than is said for the so-called atomic bomb to achieve the desired effect. For example, they would detonate the dynamite to 70 m instead of 300m official depth, and it was good.

Suddenly, it was possible to simulate the effects of an atomic bomb. So even if there were witnesses honest, they would have seen that there's fire.

Furthermore, it should be noted that these underground explosions have not sent the rock flying everywhere. As we have seen, according to the official version, for these experiments, craters just a landslide. There would have been a cavity that would be created deep in the rock because of the explosion which would have brought down part of the floor above the blast.

Apparently, only the bomb that created the crater Sedan have driven ejection of rock and soil into the atmosphere (100 kt bomb, hole diameter of 400 m and 100 m depth).

It is important because, suddenly, there was more to copy a part of so-called craters made with atomic bombs: the vitrification of the bottom of craters because of the heat explosions. It would have been boring to do. Once this problem was deleted.

is true that in the Sedan Crater, the background is the so-called vitreous. But you may think it is possible that they poured into the bottom of the hole something like thermite, which creates a huge heat. It is nothing complicated about doing that on one hole. If they had done this for all the craters, they would be well pissed. But here, for a single hole was feasible.

That said, there shall be no glazing on the walls of Sedan Crater. Vitrification would occur due yet, at least on the lower half, given the heat in the center of the explosion. Indeed, for the first explosion Atomic history (Trinity, 18 kt explosion almost to the ground), we are told that the soil was vitrified on a circle of 800 meters in diameter. So we do not see why, if not the whole crater, at least half of it would not be vitrified. Especially since there, the bomb was 5 times more powerful. And in addition, for a few seconds, the heat had nowhere to escape, saw that there were still plenty of land over the walls of the hole. So, the walls of the hole had every reason to be vitrified.

could tell us they have removed the vitreous earth. But apparently not, since we are told that the background He remained glazed. Saying that there is trinitite (the name of the earth vitreous during an atomic explosion) at the bottom of the hole turns against them, because then they can not leave the argument that they s 'would have removed and buried elsewhere. And then, there is the problem of the crater walls that are not vitrified.

So we could say that the shock wave ejects the walls glazed. But in this case, it would reduce the powdered vitrified bottom of the crater.


- The absence of craters associated with explosions in the open air sites Americans

We saw the craters made by underground explosions. Rest those made during the explosions in the open air. Well, coincidentally, when analyzing the data, we find that there was almost no craters created during explosions in open air sites located in America.

There is only 2 craters apparently linked to explosions in the open air. One of

Trinity (20 Kt, exploded at 30m above the ground), made in New Mexico, doing 330m in diameter and 3m deep. This suggests that even being on the spot just after the explosion, it would be difficult to see the crater, with such a low gradient. Moreover, the witnesses speak of a slight depression rather than a crater. Moreover, we do not see much about the photo showing him. And besides, it was recapped below. So now there is no trace.

And there is also the test Sugar , Operation Jangle (November 19, 1951, 1.2 kts) explodes at ground level and made a crater 30 meters in diameter and 7m deep.

But for the other bombs, there is officially no crater.

The reason would probably be invoked is that there was almost no explosion at ground level on the site of Nevada. Virtually all the explosions were conducted on towers with a minimum height of 50 m and a maximum height of 250 m. Moreover, many explosions were very low power: 2 kt, sometimes even 0.5 kt. And there were many explosions of relatively low power: between 7 and 10 kt kt.

However, given the data, it seems that an explosion of less than 40/50 knots made more than 65 m does not crater. That's what makes that there was no crater created during explosions in the open air at the site of Nevada. Finally, an explanation that would probably given.

But of course, is very suspicious that bombs are not as powerful crater, even explosively at 100 or 200 m high, or 20 kt bombs exploding on the ground make craters and only 100m shallow. While mere explosions of conventional products are relatively deep craters. Example:

"May 24, 2004 at Mihailesti, Romania. Road accident involving a lorry carrying 20 tonnes of ammonium nitrate in bags of 50 kg, which was reversed to 4:55 ET caught fire. At the end of an hour, a violent explosion kills 18 people and seriously injures a dozen. The explosion left a crater about 15 meters in diameter and 10 meters deep "

There were not 20 kt. It was a thousand times less. But it was a crater 15m 10m. While bombs 50, 500 or thousand times more powerful ordnance also at ground level or just at 30 m, are the craters of a depth equal or smaller (Cactus bomb, or Trinity, or Sugar).

"Oppau BASF Explosion in 1921 , 565 dead and 2000 injured. Formation of a crater 100 m in diameter and 19 m deep. The explosion occurred in a manufacturing-based products of ammonium nitrate. "

Okay, in this factory, there should be a lot of explosive material, but probably not the equivalent of 20 kt. And yet, the crater is 19m deep. While Trinity is only 3m deep and Cactus (18 kt explosion at ground level), 12m.

And it is convenient that the bombs did not crater, and say it's normal that they have not done. Because otherwise, with the experience with many soldiers, he would explain the lack of craters. And there would be embarrassing. So we had to say that the bombs bursting in height do not crater. Otherwise, the soldiers expressed their absence. And the deception would have appeared in broad daylight. While there is no problem. There was no crater to be done before the test, or ban too close to the zero point for the soldiers.

an aside: it is possible that there actually had thousands of witnesses during the explosions. It was enough to have a series of napalm bombs exploding simultaneously. The explosion spread over 400 or 500 m. Then, as the soldiers were away (within 8 km), it was difficult to accurately estimate the width of the mushroom cloud. So you could say it was a bit wider than it actually was. And after the time they arrive, the fungus was much too high in the sky so they can determine its size. And you can even think that the fungus had disappeared altogether. So, it was possible to pass bladders for lanterns to thousands of people. And of course, as at the time of the explosion, they were told not to look under pain of becoming blind person could see that several explosions were simultaneous explosions and the ground control.


- Craters of the sites of the Pacific Islands

There are few craters on some atolls of the Marshall Islands during tests performed in open air. The three largest are those of Castle Bravo, Ivy Mike and Teva.

The problem already is that there are inconsistencies in the other consequences of these explosions.

the photos of Bikini Atoll, just after the explosion of the bomb Castle Bravo (15 Mt explosion at 7 m above ground, 1 March 1954, crater 2 km in diameter and 70 meters depth fireball 11 km in diameter), we are shown a military camp devastated. It is assumed that it was on Bikini Atoll, as the atoll closest Ailinginae is about 125 km. Therefore, the breath was certainly not come up Ailinginae.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd1IFjBNNVo




crater supposedly created by the bomb Castle Bravo, the top left corner of the atoll (center yellow circle). The yellow circle embodies the width of the mushroom cloud (11 km diameter).

In fact, the video is not clear where exactly the place devastated we are shown on Bikini Atoll (in 3mn40). Is it at Bikini or Enyu (located just east of the atoll), which are about 30 km from the center of the explosion, or is it one of the islands closer? Mystery.

But there are several problems. Towards 3mn52, we are shown a piece of forest. But we see just one or two trees fell. A 3mn54, there is another place where there is forest. But there is a tree that fell, while others remained standing for more. So it does not correspond to the effect that the cause of a nuclear bomb blast, which should have everything down, and in the same direction.

And we have no aerial view showed us over a wide area that the trees would have fallen in the same direction. Therefore, impossible to get an idea of the extent of damage. And impossible to know if we have many trees that have fallen into the same meaning. It suggests that the film's producers did not want to have an aerial view, because there was simply nothing to show. They had to cut some trees and prefer to show a tiny bit of forest, rather than bored to uproot hundreds of trees throughout the island.

And images of the destruction of the military camp, some stuff does not stick. There are enough elements for wood that is not broken (3mn44). While we also shows buildings driven by the blast. A 3mn07, we see the towers not fallen, then there is destruction all over the camp. Chaos the camp does not seem natural, as if we had laid the wooden beams. We do not see many broken beams. It's as if they had been deposited there in bulk history of giving an impression of chaos.

Similarly, there is no ash deposited around the buildings or the beach, while the wind was blowing to the rest of the atoll that day (going east) and the fungus was supposed to a height of over 60 km (the point of the island farthest from the blast was 35 miles east). Especially we are told also that the Japanese fishermen on the boat "Lucky Dragon No. 5 " had been covered and that the ash had fallen over them for hours.

And coincidentally, it does not show us the destruction on the islands closest to the center of the explosion.

Indeed, given the crater created (2 km in diameter and 70 meters deep), it would be the dozens of large and small rocks that landed on the islands near the explosion. It would have been spectacular show us. But no, they do not show. There would also be a huge upheaval of the soil on the islands a few kilometers from the explosion (all trees uprooted or burned, while the sand flew). But again, while it would have been spectacular, it does not show them. The only thing we watch is the crater.

In particular, it does not show the island is right next to the explosion. Yet again, it would have been spectacular. Since we are told that the fireball was 11 km in diameter, and we are told that a bomb is 1 million degrees at its center and 4,000 degrees at its periphery, the surface of the island would of being vitrified. Especially for the Trinity bomb, although less powerful, we are told that there was vitrification of soil on a circle of 800 meters in diameter (400m very clear and more diffuse on Another 400 meters). And if not smooth, it should have been totally devastated.

If we do not show is simply because there has never been an explosion of atomic bomb at that location and that the island was near perfectly intact.

One thing is certain in any case, the satellite images shown by Google Earth, so the current images show a beautiful vegetation there. No sealing, no devastation, no bare rock. So maybe the army recovered from the sand and trees. But in any case, there is no evidence that he has spent anything be there.

And then the hole is a little too well (same thing for Ivy Mike). It lacks chaotic side. One would imagine that the edges of the hole would have been quite upset. One might think that the explosion would have led outright walls of the hole and a portion of the edges of the hole is above water. For example, for the bomb Cactus, there are raised edges around the crater. But here, no one has anything like that (and pictures taken just after the explosion. So we can not argue that because the army had kidnapped on radioactive soil the crater rim). The hole is therefore more work of art than anything else.

Moreover, the piece of atoll we are shown at the beginning of the video of the Castle Bravo explosion apparently is not good. There is an island north of the explosion (well, I say from the north corner shooting the video, in fact, that is). And on the video, it is not. And this is not the atoll where they underwent Ivy Mike, because, again, there is an island with trees north of the explosion. Maybe the hole was already dug and they did not show, or something like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJoyOl7_QBg

So it is clear, given the various inconsistencies, the Castle Bravo nuclear explosion never happened.

Also on the Ivy Mike test (1 November 1952, 10.4 Mt of Enewetak atoll, an explosion at ground level), the photo of the island at the edge of the crater (1.9 km in diameter and 50m deep) after the explosion does not correspond to what we see at the end of the video (to 4mn56). On the video, the island seems to fit perfectly into the circle of the crater. In the photo, she cheerfully biting the crater.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlysT9e2Ls

capture from the video. The crater is at the top left. The island hugs the circle

And while on the video, we see the three islands without any trees, we're not talking vitrification. And there is not seeming to have the video taken from the helicopter (you can see the sand). And we do not see the presence of huge rocks ejected by the explosion. So there should be.

And finally, in one case as in the other, there is a mushroom cloud with a smoke very dense. And we saw such a thing is impossible.

Note that, like the craters of Nevada, there is almost no witnesses to the creation of those Pacific islands. When the bombs are not supposed to create craters, there are thousands of witnesses, when they create, there is no overlap. I do not speak well on any witnesses of atomic explosions in the Pacific Islands, I mean those going to see what was happening at ground zero just after the explosion. But hey, even the explosions themselves, there was probably not many people.

So it is true that two of these craters are huge. So even if made afterwards, it is a big job.

But already, there is no evidence that this so of their existence. There is apparently no pictures of the craters made by individuals (the site is accessible from more than 20 years). Satellite photos of Google Earth does naturally want to say anything, since Google is a U.S. company that may well have changed the pictures according to the wishes of the national defense.

But suppose that these craters (Mike Ivy and Castle Bravo) exist, we can assume that their creation was obtained as follows. It was digging craters spread over several years.

The army would have made several moves. Indeed, they did several tests in the craters in question. Example, the test Apache Operation Redwing, was made in the crater made by the bomb Ivy Mike. And testing Cherokee and Zuni had to be made on the islands have made the Castle Bravo test. Therefore, they could destroy much of the rock with a few tens of thousands of tons of dynamite for the first time, organize the clearing under the pretext of not allowing Radioactive rock in the lagoon and then destroy another part of the rock with a few tens of kilo-ton of dynamite again, and again to clear the rocks by the army. And so on. In the end, it made two fine holes of 2 km on 50/60 m. As the sea is right next door, there was no problem to get rid of pulverized rock.

Besides these three large craters, there are three or four others on the atolls of Bikini and Enewetak, but much smaller (within 100m). It comes from the fact that most of the other bombs were fired from barges, where the lagoon was quite deep. So it did not crater. Example, the bomb Flathead (365 kt, June 11, 1956, Bikini Atoll, Operation Redwing), driven almost 2km from the island Yurochi. Or the bomb Huron (225 kt). Or the bomb Dakota (Operation Redwing, 1 Mt), which was detonated at the same location as the bomb Flathead. So, it has avoided bored of doing all these craters.

So there is in all and for all large craters as 4: 1 at the site of Nevada, and 3 on the Marshall Islands. So far, if we had tons of craters of these sizes there, we could have said that they had really makes a difference. But here, with only 4 large craters, it's nothing extraordinary. Especially since there are only two really big and very profound.

Incidentally, for the cactus bomb, for once, we were talking about the "lip of the crater ", that is to say the earth accumulated on the sides of the crater, which is 3m. So normally there should be land accumulated on the sides of craters. But the holes made by the larger bombs (Ivy Mike, Castle Bravo ...) we saw no ground gained.

We are told that it worked for Cactus pit used to bury 110,000 cubic yards (1 yard = 0.91 meter) of land from other radioactive atomic experiments in the region. It was then concealed with a concrete dome (it became the Runit dome). Given the size of the craters created by H-bombs, and the extent of radioactive fallout, it seems surprising that a small crater of 120m by 12m, was able to contain everything.


- Contradiction between the presence of craters in the Pacific due to air blasts and the absence of craters in the tests located in Nevada

There are also some contradictions regarding the craters created by bombs atomic.

Already there craters whose width and / or depth differ while bombs were identical powers. For example, we are told that the bomb Cactus (May 5, 1958), exploded at ground level on Runit Island, Enewetak Atoll in, which was 18 kt, made a crater only 120m x 12m . While Trinity , 20 kt, pulled 30m ground, made of a 330m x 3m .

Conversely, there are craters of equal diameter while bombs are of different strengths. Bomb Dog of 81kt, taken at 100m from the ground, is only a crater 120m in 10 m (estimated from the amount of rock displaced: 250,000 tons), as the bomb Cactus which only 18 kt (exploded at ground level).

There are also craters larger then the bomb is of lower power. Thus, the bomb Seminole, exploded at ground level, making only 13.7 knots, made a crater 200 meters wide and 10 deep. It also

craters that are larger with a bomb more powerful, but less deep. For example, the bomb Mohawk, 360 kt, detonated 100m from the ground (on Ruby Island, Enewetak Atoll) is a crater diameter of 430m, to only 2.7 m deep. While the bomb Dog much less powerful (81 kt) and that exploded at the same height, made a crater 10 meters deep. The bomb George (225 kt, Enewetak Atoll, Ruby Island, Operation Greenhouse, May 8, 1951), exploded at a lower altitude (65m above the ground), does a crater 400m in diameter but only 3m deep.

So if the bomb Trinity pulled 30m from the ground makes a crater 330m by 3m, it should not have the bomb should be 120mx12m Cactus, but a crater about 330m. Especially since it was closer soil as Trinity. Or maybe it's the Trinity bomb that would only make the 120m. Seminole and the bomb would not make a crater 200m wide, but something smaller, less than 120m wide. Perhaps 80m.

Moreover, for Trinity, it makes a crater up to 165m away from the bomb. So if it makes a crater 165m away, you do not see why the bombs of the same power or more powerful explosion 100m high, would not make craters as well.

For example, the most powerful bomb that I found and exploded with the lowest without making a crater, is the explosion Item . It is 45 kt, Enewetak atoll, island Enjebi, Operation Greenhouse, May 24, 1951. It was made at 65m from the ground. Given its power, and the height of the explosion, she should have done a crater. But no.

And then, the fungus was Trinity 300m wide. So that means that the crater is the width of the fungus. Therefore, we do not see why the craters of Castle Bravo Ivy or Mike would not also the width of the fungus. So we saw that their fungus was in the 11km wide crater should have done 11km in diameter, too.


4) Trinitite present only on the website of the Trinity bomb

To convince people of the existence of atomic bombs, it highlights the creation of trinitite (vitrification of soil with a green color, about 2 cm thick) in the explosion of the bomb Trinity .

Here is a photo taken by someone who had gone to visit the site where the test took place. We clearly see the small green pieces.




But already, the picture of the supposed crater after the explosion, we saw no vitrification. And of course, the photo is black and white like that, we can not know if the ground is green or not.




More importantly, we are not talking about never trinitite for other explosions in the open air. While there would obviously have been there for bombs had not been drawn yet very high and powerful than Trinity. Of the films showing the results of an explosion, or soldiers strolling toward the center of an explosion, it is not, and we are not talking about trinitite.

For example, the Cactus test, already mentioned, there are people who have recently made photographs on the island where the experience was made: Runit Island. However, when we could see that there are still Songs trinitite everywhere on the site of the Trinity test, one finds the presence of any piece of trinitite on Runit Island. The military has the best clean the beach Runit that the test location of Trinity.

beach Runit Island: no trace of trinitite

The people behind the hoax have the will impress the people at the first explosion. The scope of the trinitite was not bad for this. Only after they had to quickly say that it was very boring to do for all other explosions. So, they decided to bury this story of trinitite.

the way, this is not difficult to make trinitite. Just use a torch. That's what makes it is full of "false" trinitite sale. To test

Tsar Bomba, the most powerful bomb ever exploded, we were told that the bomb has converted part of the soil in ash. This time, no vitrification of soil as some American bombs. Effects when there are changing according to the nationality of the bomb.

Difference Between Half And Full Head Highlights

Why was made to believe that the Middle East is a region crucial oil? Israel

For over 40 years, we are told that the Middle East is a region in terms of capital reserves and oil production. We like this area the most important. And it makes us think that this is important enough for the Western states intervene regularly in the region.

1) We present the Middle East as the largest oil region for geopolitical reasons. The real reason: to have a pretext to intervene. And intervene to allow the expansion of the state of Israel

However, as we have seen, since oil is abiotic, everywhere there is oil in huge quantities. The USA have reserves that allow them to be independent for probably 10,000 years or more. And there are certainly far in South America, Africa, Russia, Australia, China, and probably even in Europe.

So, if a region of the globe has been presented as the major oil region is that it has voluntarily chosen to become one. It has nothing to do with chance discoveries. In the case of the Middle East, given the poverty of the region, this is clearly not for economic reasons other than oil. So, it's obviously for political reasons . And if we beat the drum for 40 years for us to believe that this is an extremely important economic zone, is obviously a reason for capital to those who run the world.

Why the Middle East has been chosen, then it is very far from America-which is the state used by the masters of the world to intervene everywhere, and some countries of this region were already relatively populated with strong governments with armies that although very low, were not completely absent (which would of course become much more powerful once discovered oil and money flowing out), so that it was much easier to control small American countries Central or South, or some African countries? It is completely illogical.

When we know a minimum area, the reason for this choice is obvious. We struck oil in these regions, and it said it was a major oil region largely for a reason to support Israel militarily and eventually enable it to implement its plan of "Greater Israel".

Without this because oil from the Middle East, there would be no further military intervention in this region (interventions that will coincidentally always in the interests of Israel). These are countries compounds mostly desert or semi-arid areas, which do not produce much. Before oil, they were poor as church mice. Without oil, there would be no explanation for financial aid, diplomatic and military in the region: support for Israel. But that is not presentable. It shows too that command in the US-Israeli couple. It quickly raise objections enormous.

course, we will reply that the first reason usually presented to the people to intervene in these countries is the fact that these countries are dictatorships and the U.S. are going to restore democracy. But that it does not work obviously not the people who have a modicum of intelligence and culture. So, we need a second reason, more credible that one, to present to the people to intervene. This reason is the fact that the region is assumed to be crucial in terms of oil supply. The reason is a false humanitarian reason put forward voluntarily so that people at least informed their way to the second. It gives a reason voluntarily easy to decode, so that people fall into the trap of the second version, which is actually also a trap.

And second reason this works well because it makes the people of the countries involved West. Insofar as we do believe we will run out of oil, much of the people will not find much wrong with the U.S. go to war in this region. Somewhere, the U.S. defend our western standard of living. And then there are quite a few people who agree more or less a state makes the war for economic reasons. For others, it's a bit in the order of things. People will criticize, they'll find it cynical, but as they accept reason and they feel more or less involved, their criticism will remain at a relatively low virulence.

Having made this region an area rich in oil has also another interest. If the states of the Middle East remained as poor as Job, Israel would have met with no opposition, and was even seen as the villain. Powerful states have in front of you, it can justify aggression thereof. Attacking defenseless countries, it would have sent Israel a monster. Attack of the rich and powerful armies with thanks to oil is already much more presentable. And then, with many countries with oil, Israel may involve the U.S. to fight in his place.

is also why we sold so many arms these countries. They have to have armies of importance to appear as threats.

And that's why some revolutions market. The revolutionaries did not win power by themselves. They were left to do. And in fact, the more likely is that the revolutionaries working for the clique that runs the world. And they have not imposed the nationalization of oil. Again, we let them do, or when, or rather, they were told to do so. That's because mastering the production of oil by the states involved in the fact that there are grounds to intervene in the region.

If the masters of world had not had an interest in the success of these revolutions and the takeover of reservations by the states of golf, be sure that none of this would not be realized. The revolutionaries would have massacred all the facts, and the slightest desire to nationalize oil wells, Westerners have mounted an expedition to prevent it, or, much simpler, have staged a palace coup. All governments current Golf is actually composed of people with the orders of the masters of the world, including Iran.

Presumably also Kippur War and the war of 7 days were held Express (with the result known in advance) for, inter alia, provide a justification then to U.S. interventionism. It has been made to present Israel as a small country surrounded by powerful enemies. Which was also used to feed the paranoia of the Jews base.

Incidentally, one might think that the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War fits into this overall project. He had to have dismembered the Ottoman Empire, because otherwise, the power lying against Israel would be far too powerful. With the dismemberment of that empire, Israel was now facing several countries inevitably much less powerful individually, and more divided.

Similarly, one can imagine that Islamist movements have been fortunate to again have a reason to intervene, and to have a permanent threat, of course, fictitious towards Israel. Threat and sham controlled allowing for Israeli leaders to create a permanent paranoia among Jews. Paranoia to weld them against the common enemy.

Moreover, revolutions, wars and nationalization in the home of golf, then the higher prices mainly orchestrated by the governments of this region (supposedly) helped to make it a warm region where it can take anything (anything that one can, for example, raise oil prices). And since this is considered an economic capital region, this instability becomes a major problem for Westerners.

All these events, and media exploitation that is made is likely to give a justification for the intervention of Western countries. It instills in people's minds the idea that the instability of the region is a source of potential economic disaster and that the intervention could not be a bad thing. This is what happened in 1990 with the invasion of Iraq.

But the base of it all is the fact that we present this region as the oil region of the globe. Without it, none of the strategies presented here have had any impact, and even, in some cases, could not be implemented.


2) The discovery of oil in the Middle East were not made by chance

course, the basic discoveries of oil from the Middle East are not a coincidence. In the years 1920 and 1930, knowing that the state of Israel would be established soon, we made surveys in the Middle East, knowing full well that we would find a lot of oil, since we are everywhere. Once this oil found, he had only to raise the sauce and bring up this region as the region most oil-rich at the expense of other oil-producing areas of the globe. When you look

were performed when the first oil discoveries in the region, most of the time shortly before the creation of the state of Israel in 1948.

For Iraq, oil was discovered in 1927, although applications for concessions were made to Turkey in 1912. Oil was discovered in Kuwait in 1936. For Qatar, the oil was discovered in the 40s. As for Saudi Arabia was in 1939.

We had well found oil in Iran earlier this century (and we can say that again, it was not a coincidence; we laid the groundwork) in 1908 (research started in 1901) . But the Middle East remains a region of oil from another. There, with new discoveries, it became a major oil region.

had to make the discoveries to This period there, so that events move at the pace required then: discovery circa 20/30 of economic wealth at the base of the future power of the states of the Middle East, Israel's founding in 1948, rise of states of the Middle East during the years 40/50 through oil, military opposition to these statements on Israel during the years 60/70 with their new economic power, instability in the years 70/80, and finally, U.S. intervention States in the region.

And if you do not surveyed earlier in Algeria and, more generally, in the old colonized countries that now produce oil (excluding oil off shore of course) is simply that if we had surveyed in priority in these countries, we would probably prospected in the Middle East until much later. And that, it would have been bad for the calendar in question. Or, one might crumbled under the oil, and go get increasingly have seemed suspicious. That's why we have discovered oil in Libya in 1959, Algeria in 1956, Egypt in 1970 (the discoveries were made in 1886, but they were minor, discoveries that enabled them become a major producer were made in the 70s) and Chad to 1967 (but was actually used these deposits only from 2003).

And we can think we limited the findings in these African countries, as well as estimates of reserves, just to ensure that this region does not appear to be more important than the Middle East. While it is obvious that, given its surface, the African continent has reserves of at least 5 times greater than that of the Middle East.

In more general terms, it limited the findings, estimates of reserves and production in other regions of the globe to prevent Middle East becomes a producing and exporting region among others (and also to prevent its reserves represent only a minor share of world reserves).


3) The purpose of the promotion of the theory of peak oil for the U.S.: give crucial to the Middle East

Presumably, if the U.S. production was reduced voluntarily from 70 years is also in order to have a reason to intervene diplomatically and militarily in the Middle East. There are other reasons, economic ones there, having voluntarily reduced production (see my post on October 16, 2005). But it is likely that the most important is that relating to Israel.

The problem is that present the Middle East as a region extremely rich in oil was not enough. It was more that the accession countries (the USA) operating in the region are considered to be relatively poor in oil. However, until then, the country chosen to police the world in the future, the U.S., was considered very rich on this raw material.

As we could not say that U.S. production would fall overnight, everything was organized well in advance to get there.

The theory of peak production in the USA, issued in 1958, has certainly been created for the occasion. King Hubbert was a nominee for the case, perhaps a CIA agent or something like that. If U.S. production had not been deliberately reduced to the point they are forced to import their oil, the U.S. had no reason to intervene diplomatically in the first region to provide quantities of arms Israel, and subsequently to intervene militarily in Iraq.

Hubbert's theory does not therefore certainly not a man one that would have made a personal analysis of the situation, but very high, from people who had developed the plan and preparing an explanation for these future events well in advance. And obviously, the promotion of this theory has subsequently been made knowingly.

It helped justify the drop in U.S. production. With the promotion of Hubbert's theory, people did not say it was odd that the U.S. production decline. They said that Hubbert was a hell of a visionary. And they said that as Hubbert had said, the reserves were exhausted and it was therefore normal for the production decline. Of course, such a theory could be advanced only when the production was diminished, but it was better to publish before long. The quoted "prophecy" is always more impressive and thus more convincing.

So around 1958, we launched the theory of Hubbert. And around 1970, he was made a reality by reducing U.S. production voluntarily. They were forced to import more and share more of their oil, and a growing share of these imports came from the Middle East, making this vital region economically, thus justifying a possible intervention military.

Perhaps the masters of the world had not originally planned to use the theory of Hubbert for anything other than the justification of declining U.S. oil production, and they said afterwards they could be recycled in part to justify war against Iraq, the problem of when to say it was near the end of oil, and that the U.S. went into Iraq to grab the small amount of oil remaining.

So, is that from the beginning, they planned to use the theory of peak oil in this case too, or do they have revived the theory for the occasion ? Mystery. One the other as is possible. But as the masters of the world are people who see afar, one might think that it is rather the first hypothesis is correct.

In passing, we note that in the years 20/30, he had been obliged to raise production from the U.S. to justify the power of his speech during the Second World War. U.S. without oil, it would have been pretty average for the war against Japan and Germany. So, it was initially still have U.S. oil independent for the 2nd World War and after the war, the U.S. have increasingly dependent on foreign oil (and Here, oil from the Middle East). Maybe it has delayed the introduction of lower U.S. production, and it would have happened 10 years earlier otherwise.

Returning to the timing of discoveries in the Middle East, we see at once that they probably could not find oil in this region sooner or later. As production of the U.S. was pushing for them to make war on their own in the '40s, finding oil in large quantities in the Middle East since the years 1900/1910 have brought down prices too. And as they were not to find oil later, it does could be found in the 20 and 30.

course, all this assumes that Israel controls the USA. Anyway, nowadays, anyone with a minimum informed knows that's the reality. The governments of the USA are regularly filled with ultra-Zionist Jews, and at key positions. At first, Israeli governments have never been filled Christian supremacist. So the answer to the question "Who controls whom?" is obvious. 15 years ago, as people were not informed, everyone would have rejected this assertion out of hand. Now, everyone a little informed knows.

Map of Israel as well as future major priori desired by the Zionist leaders

For this plan the next big Israel is achieved, we must conquer the countries concerned. Since this is not the Israeli army (too low) can do that, and that the Zionist leaders prefer that others fight for them, it will be the USA who will. For the U.S. to do so, they must have a reason. The pretext of oil is one reason presentable. So they can advance the pretext of oil, they must have needed to import oil (even as it said the end of oil is coming soon), and the Middle East is considered the major oil region. Since oil is abiotic, and it's everywhere in enormous quantities and therefore, that the Middle East is a region oil among others, and that the U.S. is actually largely autonomous must lie on the importance of the Middle East and on American reservations. And we must limit the production of other parts of the globe to the Middle East does not see its importance diminish too.