1. The question is not whether it can lift a lot of debris, but whether it will lift virtually ALL of it. But aside from the improbably low absolute amount of fallout, we also have its isotopic composition, which neither in Hiroshima nor in Nagasaki agrees with the official story. This is all documented in detail in the book, and I will …
1. The question is not whether it can lift a lot of debris, but whether it will lift virtually ALL of it. But aside from the improbably low absolute amount of fallout, we also have its isotopic composition, which neither in Hiroshima nor in Nagasaki agrees with the official story. This is all documented in detail in the book, and I will not go into more detail here.
2. There is massive evidence of LOCAL shock waves. One Japanese explosives engineer experienced "the bomb" at 13 km out from the alleged hypocenter. Inspecting the damage, he muses: "why did the blast come from a direction at right angles to the flash?"
"Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded" -- indeed. But there are many witnesses who report having looked straight at the flash, yet not a single case report of retinal burns.
3. This is indeed a weak point. The best bit of testimony is one I did not keep tabs of, unfortunately, because at the time I was focused on gathering the "hard" evidence. If I remember correctly, it was on the BBC website. A woman in Nagasaki who was at the time working with the air defence in Nagasaki saw multiple planes approaching and tried to get her superiors to raise an air alarm, but failed at that. This points to collusion of the Japanese authorities.
Another bit is this, from "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, who relates the impressions of a witness from Hiroshima: "In her confusion she had the illusion that vast numbers of planes were roaring over the city, dropping bomb after bomb without cessation."
4. It's all in the book. Mustard gas WAS used by the Japanese themselves in China. The Japanese sure would have recognized the signs of its use. This is another argument that points to Japanese collusion.
5. None of these statements prove anything re. conventional or nuclear bombings.
Look. The key point of the book is the medical and physical evidence. This factual evidence alone, is enough to clearly prove that no atomic bombs were detonated, and that mustard gas, napalm, and reactor waste were used to fake the nukes.
Based on that conclusion, I then propose
a) a hypothetical scenario as to how the bombings were faked,
b) a hypothetical motive for the entire thing.
The scenario and the motive are necessarily more speculative, and I am all for people trying to poke holes into them and trying to improve on them. But doing so will not suffice to resurrect the official story. For that, you actually have to address the physical and the medical evidence. You have not provided any substantial arguments that would do so.
Regardless of the source, there were obviously huge fires involved, and many people were horribly burned. Any use of mustard gas would be completely superfluous and pointless. It's an absurd proposition on the face of it. (Why didn't they do the same thing to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and other cities?)
You have not offered proof -- only evidence, as I have. It is up to readers to assess what is presented (gathering more info themselves, if they wish), and then formulate their own conclusions, based (we hope) on sound logic and a preponderance of evidence.
One closing point, though, for good measure: It seems reasonably certain that aerial photos of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki mushroom clouds are real, not faked. (There was no Photoshop in 1945, and fraudulent photos like Stalin's were easy to detect and discredit.)
I've never seen comparable pictures from the dozens of Japanese cities that were simply firebombed. Is that because conventional fires do not create the massive concentrated temperatures produced by an atomic explosion?https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#7
From this and other comments of yours, it seems that not only did you not read the book, but you even did not watch the video at the top of this page. Having arrived at this conclusion, I consider it pointless to continue this discussion.
I did watch the video, but see no reason to read the book if the points I have raised above are not addressed. Your scenario remains implausible if it cannot convincingly explain mushroom clouds, miles of damaged buildings surrouding the fire zones, and the distinct absence of hundreds of these things:
1. The question is not whether it can lift a lot of debris, but whether it will lift virtually ALL of it. But aside from the improbably low absolute amount of fallout, we also have its isotopic composition, which neither in Hiroshima nor in Nagasaki agrees with the official story. This is all documented in detail in the book, and I will not go into more detail here.
2. There is massive evidence of LOCAL shock waves. One Japanese explosives engineer experienced "the bomb" at 13 km out from the alleged hypocenter. Inspecting the damage, he muses: "why did the blast come from a direction at right angles to the flash?"
"Only those looking directly at the fireball (2,000 ft. up) during the first few seconds of detonation would be permanently blinded" -- indeed. But there are many witnesses who report having looked straight at the flash, yet not a single case report of retinal burns.
3. This is indeed a weak point. The best bit of testimony is one I did not keep tabs of, unfortunately, because at the time I was focused on gathering the "hard" evidence. If I remember correctly, it was on the BBC website. A woman in Nagasaki who was at the time working with the air defence in Nagasaki saw multiple planes approaching and tried to get her superiors to raise an air alarm, but failed at that. This points to collusion of the Japanese authorities.
Another bit is this, from "The Rising Sun" by John Toland, who relates the impressions of a witness from Hiroshima: "In her confusion she had the illusion that vast numbers of planes were roaring over the city, dropping bomb after bomb without cessation."
4. It's all in the book. Mustard gas WAS used by the Japanese themselves in China. The Japanese sure would have recognized the signs of its use. This is another argument that points to Japanese collusion.
5. None of these statements prove anything re. conventional or nuclear bombings.
Look. The key point of the book is the medical and physical evidence. This factual evidence alone, is enough to clearly prove that no atomic bombs were detonated, and that mustard gas, napalm, and reactor waste were used to fake the nukes.
Based on that conclusion, I then propose
a) a hypothetical scenario as to how the bombings were faked,
b) a hypothetical motive for the entire thing.
The scenario and the motive are necessarily more speculative, and I am all for people trying to poke holes into them and trying to improve on them. But doing so will not suffice to resurrect the official story. For that, you actually have to address the physical and the medical evidence. You have not provided any substantial arguments that would do so.
Regardless of the source, there were obviously huge fires involved, and many people were horribly burned. Any use of mustard gas would be completely superfluous and pointless. It's an absurd proposition on the face of it. (Why didn't they do the same thing to Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, and other cities?)
You have not offered proof -- only evidence, as I have. It is up to readers to assess what is presented (gathering more info themselves, if they wish), and then formulate their own conclusions, based (we hope) on sound logic and a preponderance of evidence.
One closing point, though, for good measure: It seems reasonably certain that aerial photos of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki mushroom clouds are real, not faked. (There was no Photoshop in 1945, and fraudulent photos like Stalin's were easy to detect and discredit.)
https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/world-war-ii-atomic-bomb-mushroom-clouds-over-hiroshima-and-news-photo/566461885
I've never seen comparable pictures from the dozens of Japanese cities that were simply firebombed. Is that because conventional fires do not create the massive concentrated temperatures produced by an atomic explosion?https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#7
From this and other comments of yours, it seems that not only did you not read the book, but you even did not watch the video at the top of this page. Having arrived at this conclusion, I consider it pointless to continue this discussion.
I did watch the video, but see no reason to read the book if the points I have raised above are not addressed. Your scenario remains implausible if it cannot convincingly explain mushroom clouds, miles of damaged buildings surrouding the fire zones, and the distinct absence of hundreds of these things:
https://allthatsinteresting.com/firebombing-of-tokyo#33
Regardless of this disagreement, I am grateful for your work in Covid-related research; it is sorely needed and greatly appreciated.