Out of sequence posting, originally the first of this threadDoesn't it seem there is less mention of THERMONUCLEAR ?
Post by mooninquirer » 17 Oct 2011 05:34
I have certainly noticed there is less discussion, if at all, of so-called THERMONUCLEAR bombs. This is in very sharp contrast to what happened during the Cold War. For example, as late as 1983, on a TV show called "The Day After" this word was thrown around a lot. I can still hear Henry Kissinger's deep, gravelly, often rightfully mocked and imitated voice ( and please, try to hear it in your head as you are reading this ! ) saying "megaton this" and "megaton that" --- referring to bombs in the 100 megaton range. The nuke bomb that supposedly destroyed Hiroshima was only said to be the equivalent of 20 kilotons of TNT, and was an "ordinary" or a fission nuclear bomb. The late Carl Sagan referred to thermonuclear weapons. Lyndon LaRouche had a 30 minute TV commercial running for president in 1984 repeatedly talking about "thermonuclear disaster" and how we needed to greatly increase funding for nuclear submarines to counter the threat from the Soviet Union. In the movie Terminator II there is a very graphic depiction of a thermonuclear air burst and its effects.
One reason for the reduced discussion would be the Cold War is over, but then, what about China ? China is obviously expanding very rapidly, technologically, so there should be a discussion of China's THERMONUCLEAR weapons. One reason is that the Zionist Jewish media do not WANT the public to worry about China, because they want the focus to be on "Islamofascism" ( note the use of the long vowel "o" --- it's significance will be discussed later ) Shouldn't there be a discussion of Russia's thermonuclear weapons, since Russia allies with Iran, a country that we might go to war with ? But then, the Zionists do not want to discourage a war with Iran. But another reason is the powers that be realize that people are getting wise to the possibility at least that nuclear weapons are a hoax. And if you realize that someone is lying about one aspect of something, you are likely to conclude he is lying about the whole thing. AFTER the extreme cynicism that the public has toward government after the failure to find WMD's in Iraq, as well as unavoidable and growing realization that 911 was an inside job, and anger over the bank bailouts, and a surprising great realization and interest in the fraud of the Federal Reserve, the mood of the public is not the gullible mood of the 1950s, or during the Cold War.
Another reason is the internet and the great ease of watching videos at any time over it. Jesse's NUKE LIES is having an impact, and anyone, at anytime, can just type into the youtube space : IVY MIKE. The footage of this must be very embarrassing, with the cheap special effects, and the over-the-top, scary, Wagner-esque music. It doesn't look or sound like science or even a military demonstration. We are NOW used to seeing videos of missiles hitting their targets, and IVY MIKE does NOT look anything at all like those, but just like what it is : a Hollywood movie. Michael Jackson USED TO have the clip of IVY MIKE exploding in his music video "Man in the Mirror" to illustrate the great problems in the world, but they decided to replace it with a more realistic looking nuclear bomb explosion, that was only fission. In real life, one of the people who told me that all nuclear bombs might be a hoax, said that the IVY MIKE explosion was really just the Sun, and it was a hoax. And he was a musician, and he repeatedly talked about the influence of music in society, saying things like Nat King Cole's "Mona Lisa"
contributed to the fame of that painting, and a similar thing about Frank Sinatra's "New York" I don't remember him saying the music in IVY MIKE is what convinced him it was a hoax, but upon hearing it myself, I thought, "Good God ! They REALLY need that music to set the emotional tone of fear, to convince them it was something horrible, and not something pleasant --- the Sun ! " As I said before, the music is really something that you can make fun of, and it is really funny to first watch Ivy Mike with the Wagner-esque music, and THEN watch it again, but muting the volume on the video playing it, but listening to Lady Gaga's "Starstruck" in another window. This song is very often used as background music for a a video of a really hot babe, like Megan Fox. It is very cheerful and happy, and has the articulate words "cherry cherry boom boom," ( making you think of a little cherry bomb, although she obviously intended a sexual reference ) " slam" and a repeated lyric of "blow up" ---- so it is really funny. Maybe you could also listen to "Here Comes the Sun" while watching IVY MIKE, or Tchaikovsky's "Dance of the Swans" from Swan Lake, or quieter pieces from the Nutcracker Suite appropriate for when the child ballerinas are dancing daintily ( i.e., not some of the loud and strenuous pieces of Nutcracker, such as "Pas de Deux" choreographed with the adult Prima Ballerina triumphantly and sexually dancing with the Nutcracker turned into a handsome prince ) Conversely, I have seen music videos which use supposed nuclear bomb explosions for loud, hardcore, industrial music. The effect of the listening to light, happy music ( while watching the IVY MIKE video on mute ) might be intense, because you will feel the OPPOSITE emotions from what the propagandists for the nuke bomb intended, and it will serve as a very useful ANCHOR for you to remember that not only is IVY MIKE a hoax, but a hoax is a very extreme way, and one that should be laughed at.
Why were they even called THERMONUCLEAR bombs at all ? That is certainly not scientific, nor accurate. The implication is that fission bombs have not been said to release a lot of energy. The EXCUSE of the propagandists is that fusion bombs require a great release of heat in order to initiate the fusion. But still, scientifically, this is called nuclear fusion, so why are they not called FUSION bombs ? I think the problem is the word "fusion" does not convey a sense of a lot of heat, energy, or otherwise something very massive, and one thinks of things being joined together, and NOT an explosion. Since it is HYDROGEN nuclei that are being fused in fusion bombs, then why don't they call them hydrogen bombs ? Unlike thermonuclear, the word hydrogen uniquely refers to the fusion bombs, as opposed to uranium or plutonium bombs, since the fusion bombs are only said to work by fusing HYDROGEN nuclei, albeit with the assistance of plutonium bombs to initiate the fusion. And very early on, they used to be called them H-bombs. But that word, I think, just didn't have the heavy sound the PR people were looking for. And "hydrogen" sounds weak and feminine. First, people think of a light, basically harmless gas, a gas that easily produces water, which is essential for life. "Hydrogen" could very easily be chosen for a line of women's swimwear, or cosmetics or skin lotion, as hydrating the skin is very important. Note the usage of the long vowel sound of "o" in the word "thermonuclear." It is not, for example, "therminuclear," or "thermanuclear," although these words could have been coined. As my musician friend ( who informed me in real life that IVY MIKE is a hoax ) told me, the long vowel "o" is the most masculine vowel. The other vowels that might be used are feminine. Thermonuclear conveys a sense of a great release of energy, that hydrogen and fusion do not. And imagine using the expression, "H-bomb warfare" or "H-bomb disaster" Thermonuclear conveys more fear. "H-bomb" could be something like a cherry bomb, and has a comic book sound to it. When you think of "thermo" you might think of something massive and heavy, like a steam boiler, or a diesel engine
--- very unlike what you think of when you hear "hydrogen." The very NEED for the propagandists to inaccurately and inappropriately call them thermonuclear bombs, for the sake of the images they conjure up, as opposed to the claimed science behind them, only serves as further evidence that fusion bombs are not a reality but just propaganda.
I used to remember hearing THERMONUCLEAR all the time. I think they are worried that people are going to start to think about what is the difference between thermonuclear bombs and ordinary nuclear bomb, and the powers that be certainly do not WANT the public to think at all. This is similar to the fact that Jews have known for a long time that the gas chambers to kill people story is a hoax. In my entire life, I have heard reference to the holocaust many times from Jews in real life, as well as in the media, but only once have I heard Jew refer to the GASSING of Jews. This is because they know the evidence doesn't support the claim, and when people find out the gas chamber story is a hoax, they are going to completely deny the whole thing. ANOTHER analogy can be to the moon landing hoax. I have noticed that on TV whenever they refer to it in anniversaries, or for other occasions, they do not show the moon buggy, but just a man going hippitty-hop on the moon. This is because showing the moon buggy will remind the general public of how implausible it was to carry such a big thing on the already very cramped lunar lander --- and it required three days usage of battery power, and replacement parts and tools for maintenance.
Even so, I have noticed people ascribing to regular nuclear fission bombs powers that were only claimed for fusion bombs. There is some type of cognitive dissonance going on here. I have even heard that the nuke power plants in Japan might blow up ALL of Japan. A common idea is that the Earthquake was MADE to happen, with HAARP. I do not accept this at all, and it just shows that people have a NEED to believe that the government has a great, God-like power to cause Earthquakes or other disasters like hurricanes, in addition to the God-like power of nuke bombs. I have heard that the Israelis deliberately sabotaged the nuke power plants in Japan. That might be, but there is no way that all of Japan would be blown up, or even an event like the supposed bombing of Hiroshima. This is something that is very emphatically stated by the physicists who are propagandists for nuke bombs. ( For example, listen to this lecture --- type into the youtube space : UC BERKELEY PHYSICS NUKES ). So some people ---- maybe a lot ---- still have a fear of fusion bombs, even if we no longer hear THERMONUCLEAR repeated over and over in the media, like we used to during the Cold War. Those that need to believe in HAARP causing Earthquakes are in the minority, and have an overly pessimistic view, and always think everything is breaking exactly as the Zionist Jews want it.
Have YOU noticed that they are no longer saying THERMONUCLEAR ? Do you think most people think fission bombs like what Pakistan and North Korea are said to have, are as great as what fusion bombs were claimed to be ? Do you think people forgot about the difference between fusion and fission bombs ?