Email to Dr Alan Sabrosky. I hadn't consciously heard of him, but stumbled across a youtube, as you do!, of a radio interview. There are many similar ones - this is a typical one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKGRB3cygg
Sabrosky's theme is 9/11 was certainly Mossad. Sabrosky has academic qualifications on military matters, and speaks out, and therefore seems an ideal person to contact. So I did. NB this is an early morning email (by my standards) and may have badly-written bits.
Dear Alan Sabrosky,
I've just discovered several Youtubes on your broadcast about a year ago, on 9/11 as a Mossad operation. Obviously this isn't a new idea - but your qualifications as Director of Studies as the U.S. Army War College and more, and the fact you’ve been proven willing to speak out, suggest you're one of the best persons for us to email.
We believe - and this *may* be a new idea to you - that nuclear weapons were a hoax when they were first announced, and probably still are today. This sounds fantastic at first hearing; but since you're presumably aware of 9/11 as a huge fake, and you must be aware of Pearl Harbor and the Liberty etc (and back to World War 1), you may be primed to consider it seriously - so *please read on*, or ask trusted colleagues to do so.
https://www.nuke-lies.org is our recent site dealing with these issues, with 4 or 5 main contributors. The originator of the ideas (as far as we've been able to trace) is a Canadian, Roger Desjardins, who has been investigating since at least 2005. We also have a few youtubes, all of them based on commercial DVDs of nuclear test films. The starting-point as far as I was concerned is the 'Nuke Lies' Youtube by Jesse of Nov 2008. Since then, for example, rerevisionist's video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N15LMWUywHs is extracted from a 1955 film, and shows several anomalies. There's another one on a British 1957 supposed H Bomb test, showing other anomalies.
Can I suggest, or plead, that you look at our forum; and look at these threads ---
[1] We consider the physics. The critical mass idea has several flaws/ The idea that enormous heat generation would cause an explosion has problems (for example the sun doesn't explode)/ We look at the Jewish angle - funding by Sachs, the hype of Einstein, the fact that the Manhattan people were Jews, despite the fact that all the pioneers were English, German, French, Americans/ 'FirstClassSkeptic' looked online at the paper which supposedly caused Einstein to write to the then-President of the USA, and found it didn't justify the claims made/ videos show that models were used to simulate blasts, notably in the tinted black-and-white inserts, about a minute long, inserted into films supposedly of bomb tests.
[2] We consider Hiroshima and Nagasaki. See the technical material on the antennae of the supposed bombs/ on the Norden bombsight as supposedly used by Ferebee, and its large error radius/ Tibbets giving contradictory accounts/ notes on the absence of photos, and on anomalies in the usual few photos/ extracts from Osada's book 'Children of the A bomb' which clearly show the town was firebombed and not nuclear/ Jungk’s post-war ‘Brighter than a Thousand Suns’/ much other material including dealing with Stalin and ending the war
[3] Hence we were led on to consider how atom bombs would be invented as concepts. The thread 'Inventing the A-Bomb: Flash, Blast, Heat, Radiation, Mushroom Cloud looks at all these issues, and the problems they caused. Flashes in daylight for example are all but impossible, hence the night-time testing of Trinity/ the huge amount of heat, initially supposed to melt sand, had to be abandoned by Hiroshima - it wasn't possible to melt large amounts of roof tiles or roads/ radiation was ignored at first - there's a photo of Oppenheimer and Groves chatting at the remains of the first Trinity explosion, but, later, the 'Lucky Dragon' fishing boat incident hyped radiation/ the 'mushroom cloud' in retrospect looks like a mistake/ the napalm-like smoke is clearly incompatible with air blasts ... etc
[4] We also considered how the H Bomb iconography must have been constructed. The U.S.A. could clearly have imposed its will on the world - notably on Stalin - IF the things were genuine. If not, the strategy must have been to inflate their danger and claim other people had them. See the thread 'Inventing the H-Bomb...'
[5] We have material also on nuclear power; opinion seems divided, but a good case is made for nuclear power as a phony - the installations may be dump loads. See the thread on this subject. If so, the newly suggested thorium reactors must presumably be phony too - possibly a cover for dumping wastes such as beryllium and thallium compounds.
[6] Obviously this affects the perception, and reality, of the military situation in modern world, and of course you (Dr Sabrosky) are well-qualified to assess the adjustments to worldviews. Including of course the position of Israel, which may prove more vulnerable than most people believe, and which of course with 9/11 and other events has in effect declared war on the USA.
There's much more on our forum (including results of my emailing the 'Oxford Research Group' of which Frank Barnaby is a part, who, as might be expected, made no attempt to answer these challenging questions).
Regards
Rae West ('rerevisionist')
