I remember having the same thought about the cameras back when I was like 10 years old.

It's not as much about the "wind" theory as it is the difference in released energy/radiation and the type of explosion. Chernobyl wasn't a nuclear explosion. It was an explosion caused by steam and hydrogen/pressure. Nuclear weapons cause reactions that don't require a whole lot of Uranium. They are quick powerful reactions that maximize the small amount of Uranium required. The reaction in a nuclear reactor is weaker, but is sustained over a long period of time. That is why Nuclear reactors can't explode like a nuclear bomb. They also take a massive amount of Uranium to fuel them. As far as sustained contamination, nuclear reactors generate a chit ton of nuclear waste and Chernobyl used graphite and cesium which have massive half lives. Also, the government covered up Chernobyl and the vegetation just soaked that chit up. At least after Hiroshima they made efforts to clean up.


TLDR: I wouldn't put it past the government to do some shady chit like that, but if you look at the differences between nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons (theoretically what they are supposed to do), that is why Chernobyl has had much longer lasting issues with radiation.

What color is the sky...?

[QUOTE=dusky99 post_id=1696452253][URL=https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/07/nuclear-bombs-do-not-exist.html]https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/07/n...not-exist.html[/URL]

Consider this, the nuclear plant explosion at Chernobyl created a radiation zone of 2600 square km which won't be livable for 20,000 years. It even killed the trees.

[img]https://e360.yale.edu/assets/site/USDA_USFS_Sierras_web.jpg[/mg]

Meanwhile the "nuclear bombs" dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had blasts 100 times bigger than Chernobyl, yet people immediately started rebuilding and those cities have no radiation today.

The theory is that those cities were firebombed with napalm, which is why the few non-wooden structures remained standing.

[img]https://i.imgur.com/zT7Zn5k.jpg[/im]

[img]https://www.henrymakow.com/upload_images/Hiroshima-aftermath.jpg[/ig]

There are zero people living in Chernobyl today. Compare that to Hiroshima's population over time

[img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Hiroshima_sta_graph.jpg[/im]

Hiroshima today

[img]https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cb09473755be259f904d128/1684551596756-R7MOPVGR27DNCPCW1NPV/PXL_20230504_021431418~4+COVER.jpg?format=2500w[/im]

Do you want to know how the elites explain it? They say that because the bombs were detonated 2000 feet above the ground the wind carried the radiation away. Meanwhile the wind from Chernobyl caused the radiation to spread to an area of 2600 km2. Use your brain.

Nuclear bombs were made up to keep other countries in fear. If an enemy believes you have a weapon that can instantly vaporize cities, they ain't gonna fuk with you.[/QUOTE]You're a retard. The bombs were detonated at heights of between 500m and 600m above each city. Chernobyls fuked powerplant post explosion sat there for ages spewing out radiation into the atmosphere before it was finally contained.

Slightly different set of circumstances, let alone the ridiculous amount of napalm required to destroy two fuken cities the way they were rekt.

I know you're into kids, like your hero MatthewChav is - have a read of a kids science page you nonce

https://www.planetsforkids.org/why-the-sky-is-blue.html

You're a Virgin and I plowed your dirty aussie mom. Call me daddy.

Slow clap for handicap

Try a little harder next time

Mmm imo the psy-op vids exposing some of the cheesy nuke propaganda vids that are actually very fake probably worked very convincingly on the demographics who were undergoing repetitive training on ******** etc..

People just don’t want to do actual research and rely on vids that reinforce their beliefs. I like being proven wrong, like boyo in one of the other vax threads brought up no previous vaccine requiring long term studies which I wish people had brought up earlier and I would have dropped that particular reasoning.

On the subject of nukes is fairly easy to find medical records of early testing exposure to people who were observing. Amongst many other things.

wot

I feel like you're setting this up to get on a really high horse over semantics. Does the sky appear blue for the same reasons that a red car appears red to us? No; the two things are caused by completely different phenomena. However, it being blue or not depends entirely on how you define the concept of color. If you define it as how our brain perceives something then the sky is blue, if you define it as the wavelengths that an object reflects instead of absorbing, then it isn't. It's just semantics, one definition is not more correct than the other, so it's silly to call each other idiots for ascribing to one definition vs the other.

On topic tho. Do you believe nukes are real or not?

Bump. I want to know more about this, I had no idea this was a thing. We're probably a few years away from a majority of this forum not believing Australia exists (I mean, have you been there? Have you seen it with your own eyes?).