Clem, I respect you so I am not attacking and will not attack you. But I have to disagree on the nukes being nonreal because I have deep scholastic connections in the physics community from which I know a lot related to nuclear weapons that I very much trust to be true.
I totally agree that many things are manipulated and have been for government reasons
Okay, so:
Makow:
I read Makow daily and have for many years. Some of what he posts is valid and on target. Some is speculative but credible. However, some guest columnists are way off base and not to be trusted. The Brabantian material very much diverges from reality. There is zero question whether the explosions produce radioactive materials that no conventional explosives can produce. Nukes produce radioactives of both the short-term isotope kind, and isotopes with longer lifetimes. After all a-bomb tests one can immediately detect short-term isotopes that did not exist before in the area. There is no other way they can exist than as products of a nuclear explosion. Interestingly, after the 9/11 event there was radioactive tritium in the area that could not have come from anything but a mini-nuke.
Mathis:
Mathis is a smart guy but he builds wrong models underlying his explanations. He is an intelligent but messed up guy.
A key flaw in his explanation here is that MANY of the ships bordering the explosion had to be scrapped and mothballed because they became radioactive, again from isotopes synthesized by the explosions. This really invalidates his conclusions.
Renegade:
Partly leverages off Brabantian, and claiming napalm and conventional explosives caused all the burning damage is partly bad physics. First of all, the blast energy was higher than conventional materials. Second, Hiroshima became radioactive, AND Japanese suffered radiation burns, not just conventional burns.
Finally, I have some technical knowledge about nuclear weapons and I assure you they are real and not a story made up to fool the public, or even the Germans who had their own bomb research. The basic technology use in some of the bombs even killed a scientist in a lab accident that is well documented where he accidentally caused a sub-critical reaction that did not explode fortunately but which created a radioactive burst that killed him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
The technology is real. Even a civilian, with the right materials, could create a very low yield gun-type atomic bomb.
You don't seem to like those sources I linked above, but really, they are not original researchers, merely relaying and summarizing the research of others (without attribution in the case of Mathis, I believe).
Original researchers are listed below, also for anyone interested in this topic who wants to read more extensively about it:
Clem, I respect you so I am not attacking and will not attack you. But I have to disagree on the nukes being nonreal because I have deep scholastic connections in the physics community from which I know a lot related to nuclear weapons that I very much trust to be true.
I totally agree that many things are manipulated and have been for government reasons
Okay, so:
Makow: I read Makow daily and have for many years. Some of what he posts is valid and on target. Some is speculative but credible. However, some guest columnists are way off base and not to be trusted. The Brabantian material very much diverges from reality. There is zero question whether the explosions produce radioactive materials that no conventional explosives can produce. Nukes produce radioactives of both the short-term isotope kind, and isotopes with longer lifetimes. After all a-bomb tests one can immediately detect short-term isotopes that did not exist before in the area. There is no other way they can exist than as products of a nuclear explosion. Interestingly, after the 9/11 event there was radioactive tritium in the area that could not have come from anything but a mini-nuke.
Mathis: Mathis is a smart guy but he builds wrong models underlying his explanations. He is an intelligent but messed up guy. A key flaw in his explanation here is that MANY of the ships bordering the explosion had to be scrapped and mothballed because they became radioactive, again from isotopes synthesized by the explosions. This really invalidates his conclusions.
Renegade: Partly leverages off Brabantian, and claiming napalm and conventional explosives caused all the burning damage is partly bad physics. First of all, the blast energy was higher than conventional materials. Second, Hiroshima became radioactive, AND Japanese suffered radiation burns, not just conventional burns.
Finally, I have some technical knowledge about nuclear weapons and I assure you they are real and not a story made up to fool the public, or even the Germans who had their own bomb research. The basic technology use in some of the bombs even killed a scientist in a lab accident that is well documented where he accidentally caused a sub-critical reaction that did not explode fortunately but which created a radioactive burst that killed him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
The technology is real. Even a civilian, with the right materials, could create a very low yield gun-type atomic bomb.
You don't seem to like those sources I linked above, but really, they are not original researchers, merely relaying and summarizing the research of others (without attribution in the case of Mathis, I believe).
Original researchers are listed below, also for anyone interested in this topic who wants to read more extensively about it:
Hiroshima Revisted: The evidence that napalm and mustard gas helped fake the nuclear bombings by Dr. Michael Palmer
Death Object - Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax by Akio Nakatani
My Atomic Bomb Findings: The grand manipulation 1945-2021 - the website of Anders Björkman, where he describes in detail his decades of research into the topic.