Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am


Unread post by patrix » Fri Mar 29, 2019 10:38 pm

The good old fifties when you could buy your very own Atomic energy lab...


Posts: 803
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm


Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Sun Apr 14, 2019 3:59 am

[Note by SCS: I moved this post here—given just how much (even more) money is in play concerning this topic.]
Altair » April 13th, 2019, 5:12 am wrote:As much as most of what NASA does is fake, its budget is real for sure. Maybe its just a giant fund diversion scheme . . .
Yes, and you may also consider just where (or, to whom) the money appropriated for “nukes” has gone for however many decades.

Not to derail—as this comment could just have easily been placed in that thread.

Now, I wonder what retail chain(s) (and other ostensibly private businesses) this “diversion scheme” has been used to prop up . . .

Posts: 854
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm


Unread post by pov603 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 10:03 am ... ompletion/

So the Chernobyl “confinement” comes to an end (or a beginning) exactly 33 years to the day after the event, apt...
Can’t wait to see the ones planned for Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Fukushima...

Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am


Unread post by Farcevalue » Mon May 06, 2019 11:35 am

Nice work if you can get it
And you can get it if you try - George Gershwin ... -cost.html ... costs.html

No "new" bombs since the 1990s, but "refurbishing" (speaking of which, I am hesitant about using refurbished hard drives in critical new computer builds, but whatever. As long as its factory refurbished I guess) an old one costs a mere $20 million.

And $5 trillion to date on nuclear. If you're going to hoax, hoax big.

Posts: 7042
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy


Unread post by simonshack » Thu Dec 26, 2019 5:05 pm

A pair of Ka-Boom mushrooms B)

Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm


Unread post by ICfreely » Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:56 am

File this under:

"Keeping Them Honest!"

Iranian press review: Exiled crown prince's support for US sanctions causes outcry
Meanwhile, interior minister confirms security forces shot at demonstrators' heads during November's unrest, and luxury house market still thriving in Tehran despite sanctions
By MEE correspondent
Published date: 19 December 2019

Iranians condemn crown prince's backing of US embargo

An interview by Reza Pahlavi, the older son of Iran’s last king, voicing support for the US’ policy of maximum pressure on Iran, has caused anger among Iranians.

In an interview with Newsweek, Pahlavi, who resides in the US and is addressed by his supporters as the crown prince of Iran, said that “Iranians understand Trump sanctions” and suggested that the nuclear deal signed by the Barack Obama adminstration had been “disastrous”.

The interview quickly caused a backlash, with many social media users condemning his comments at a time when ordinary Iranians are bearng the burden of a devastating US embargo on Iran.

In reaction to the interview, Iranian foreign policy analyst Amir Ali Abolfath wrote on Twitter: “Those who say today that ‘Iranians understand Trump sanctions’, tomorrow will say that ‘Iranians will also understand Trump bombings’ and also ‘the parade of Trump’s soldiers on Iran’s soil’.

Pahlavi’s comments also renewed speculation about the amount of money that the royal family pulled out of Iran when they fled the country one month before the 1979 revolution.

An Iranian social media user wrote on Twitter that Pahlavi was pleased by the sanctions because “he had pulled out enough [money from Iran] that he has been eating and sleeping for the past 40 years, without the slightest understanding of [what it means to] have hungry children and wife”.

Meanwhile, a BBC Persian journalist posted on Twitter a 2015 interview with Pahlavi in which the former king's son supported the 2015 nuclear deal, saying that he believed that “having an agreement with Iran, is better than no agreement”. ... ses-outcry


Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm


Unread post by ICfreely » Sat Jan 25, 2020 4:49 pm

File this under:

Nukes & Satellites: "you so two-thousand and late"

The Black Eyed Peas - Boom Boom Pow (Official Music Video)

full link:

Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm


Unread post by Mansur » Tue Sep 08, 2020 12:44 am

I don’t know when and how the term “nuke” has been used for the first time, was it contemporary with the after-WWII propaganda or not, but in the following citation seems to be a strange coincidence.

(We are at about 1700 in feudal Japan:)
“…Sekiun was then already past sixty when I, Ichiun, twenty-eight years old, came to him as pupil. During the five years of tutorship under Sekiun, I applied myself most earnestly and assiduously to the art of swordsmanship, which was now taught by the old master in the form newly synthesized with the principle and practice of Zen. When I thought I was finally ready to try my attainment with the master, I challenged him, and at each of the three contests we were engaged in, the outcome was what was called ‘ai-nuke’.”

(Ai-nuke is a new term in swordplay. When the contestants are of equal caliber and proficiency the game as it is generally played finishes with an ai-uchi, which, when it is carried on with real steel, means killing each other. An ai-nuke, however, does not at all involve any kind of killing or hurting each other, as nuke means, not “striking down” as uchi does, but “passing by,” or “going through” unhurt. When, therefore, Ichiun had his tests with Sekiun, his teacher, neither of them was at all hurt though they were of equal attainment. There was no “striking down” on either side. Each “escaped” without being defeated in any sense of the word…)
Also, the Japanese “nuke” is certainly a two-syllable word and its present English spelling may be from later time or simply the author’s invention by writing his book in 1958 (D. T. Suzuki - Zen and Japanese Culture, can be found at the archive dot org); - sorry, I can not check it up.

Isn’t the idea, additionally, of “mutual striking-down or killing” (the “ai-uchi”), too, a really M.A.D. one?

Posts: 194
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:01 am


Unread post by rusty » Thu Oct 15, 2020 8:35 am

Detailed review of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Michael Palmer, may contain some useful information.

The fake nuclear bombings were not acts of warfare - for Japan had effectively surrendered when it caved and lent a hand with staging them - but rather acts of state terror. Then, what for? Shortly after the bombings, a wave of nuclear fear propaganda was unleashed upon the world. Nuclear war and annihilation were right around the corner - and the answer was world government...How much, or rather how little, real sovereignty is left is painfully obvious in the staged COVID-1984 crisis.
If we conclude that no atomic bombs exploded, then how could we explain the radiation sickness? The answer is quite simple: with mustard gas. This is a battle gas that attacks the lungs, the skin, and the interior organs. Among the latter, the bone marrow is very severely affected, and in a manner very similar to radiation...Mustard gas, despite its name is an oily fluid, is known to linger. At Hiroshima, it still lingered when Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett, visited in early September, one month after the attack: "My nose detected a peculiar odor unlike anything I have ever smelled before ... they [the Japanese] believe it [the smell] is given off by the poisonous gas still issuing from the earth soaked with radioactivity released by the split uranium atom."
Many witnesses in fact likened their impressions to a photographer's flash, and indeed the very large magnesium photoflash bomb may have been used to stage the "atomic flash". There was no single enormous "bang", but rather several smaller ones; most likely created with high explosives detonated in the air.

Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm


Unread post by Mansur » Tue Oct 27, 2020 11:12 am

Have you seen the book itself too?

Here is a specimen:
14.3 The faked nuclear bombings as terror acts

We are thus left with the conclusion that the bombings were faked to stun and
horrify a party without the means to see through the deception—a party with no
secret service to provide it with reliable information and to protect it from being
misled by the gruesome stage play. Since this rules out major state actors, the
only plausible alternative is that the fraud was aimed at humanity at large—the
bombings should be understood as two particularly vile and violent acts of state
terrorism, disguised as ‘military combat’.

14.3.1 What was the motive behind the terror attacks? Readers prepared to
seriously consider the main thesis of this book are likely to have seen through
the true nature, actors, and purpose of the terror attacks on September 11th,
2001. Those who have not can find out more from David Ray Griffin’s excellent
book 9/11 Ten years later: when state crimes against democracy succeed [307].
However, they might for the moment accept the verdict of former Italian head
of state Francesco Cossiga, who declared in 2007 with respect to a certain video
that had surfaced in Italy:

". . . the non-authenticity of the video is evidenced by the fact that Osama
Bin Laden in it ‘confesses’ that Al-Qaeda was the author of the September
11 attack on the two towers in New York, while all democratic circles in
America and Europe, with those of the Italian center-left in the forefront,
know that the disastrous attack was planned and carried out by the
American CIA and Mossad with the help of the Zionist world to accuse
the Arab countries and to induce the Western powers to intervene both in
Iraq and Afghanistan."

Having concluded that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terror acts in the same
vein as ‘9/11’, we must look for the motive behind them...

[270 p.]
And he treats, indeed, all the themes he touches "in the same vein"…

This new information about mustard gas (whether correct or not) seems to be more of a kind of "leak."

It is strange that although he mentions on the very first page as a possible position (Heiwa and his website) the physical and scientific inability of the thing, he not only narrows his examination to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but also tries to illustrate what a real nuclear attack is and what it is not - with a rather wide technical apparatus.

Post Reply