Witing on the Nuke Hoax question at Simon Shack's Reality Shack, Piper had this to say;
I discount the existence of "nuclear" bombs as a fear-mongering "Sword of Damocles"-type illusion that has now successfully kept billions of people living in fear of nuclear annihilation for 65 years. This is based on the improbability behind the science of the explosive device and the alleged mechanism that powered it, as well as the obviously forged videos and the high propaganda value behind the idea, since the firebombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served to kick off the fake "cold war" and the fabricated "arms race", which featured both the US and Russia pocketing billions in their taxpayers' money for the manufacturing of these fake "nukes" and, some years later, for the "disarming" of same fake "nukes".
The science itself is described as improbable. I am no physicist so I'm not going to say the math in the models presenting the feasibility are wrong but from a layman's point of view I think they want me to buy the idea that they can produce energy and matter out of nothing. I think they marginalized the variables in the formulas to the extreme to create the illusion of a functional atomic bomb. This is a major reason why Einstein was the last choice to write a letter to the President, most other scientists were not as eager to let so many critical variables become trivialized.
As long as the common man paying for the hoax thought the experts were solid on the math they could ride with that. Voices of dissent conserning the variables were just as lost on the mainstream media as are most of the compelling arguments exposing the fake moonlandings.
With most people still believing the official record of the events of 911, well after a decade-spanning tsunami of revealing discussions online describing the truth, you can well imagine people of that time favored the "we are great builders of atomiic bombs" over the voices of reason crying foul.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been seen as the "kickoff" to the Cold War but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were elaborate homicidal eviction notices served under the shroud of war. One look at Hiroshima-the-busy-metropolis seaport merchant city these days compared with the cardboard, paper and wood prefecture full of small family lots passed on from one generation to another and if you also consider the work involved in overriding those deeds in the judiciary you will find the shortest route to bypass the courts and secure these lots for impending expansion is by firebombing the deed-owners to kingdom-come in a purifying firestorm.
The intense heat would prevent epidemics arising from the corporal decay of the dead. A 5000 degree firestorm is sure to make cleanup a lot safer in that regard. Protection against the presence of black rain pools everywhere is another matter little has been said about.
Piper mentions disarmament talks. The problem the atomic hoaxsters inherited across the decades was the pesky doctrine of Mutually-Assured-Destruction we looked at earlier in this thread. The need for genocide on a global scale was not a big concern at the end of the last one. The ruling elites had wiped out millions of hand-picked non-affiliates in each political partition and it was time to get back to regular cattle management and little thought was given to future global-scale "culling" needs. As the need for culling approached the elites were boxed into the framework of Mutually-Assured-Destruction (MAD) and could not start a WW2-style genocide without making people wonder where the nukes went and why escalation always seems impossible.
In that spirit they staged arms reduction talks aimed at creating the illusion that the global stockpiles were diminishing. I estimate at least someone with discretionary power thought they could sell us the idea that man had reduced his arsenals of nukes to near zero.
The only other choice was to stage a fake alien invasion of the "The Day the Earth Stood Still" type but instead of reasoning us into rethinking our atomic policies, the alien destroyed all the atom bombs permanently with warnings that the earth will be destroyed if the aliens feel they need to come back again.
Diminishing a non-existant stockpile with staged reduction talks was probably simpler.
Thing is, how do you convince people that any sane person would destroy his own arsenal after charging the constituents a king's ransom to obtain them? Knowing man's competitively combative nature.
What kind of people don't protest one peep at the wholesale destruction of very, very expensive weaponry? Greet that as if conventional weaponry was a picnic by comparison.
Comes right back too what I was saying earlier about people thinking they are having a pretty good day if they are not being exterminated wholesale with ignited gasoline showers driven by illusions of failed diplomacy they tell us are wars.
Edited by Ghostwriter, 21 January 2014 - 04:17 PM.
.gif)
