I think I see what you're saying here.
I can buy that the 'official story' is just a lie, given of the propensity for lying that people have. In fact that longer paper I shared gives something of a quantitative measure of how effectively people lie with the p parameter of the equation.
Though it could also be mere ignorance about the effects of a new technology, or how those effects differ from the theoretical model's predictions.
There are always unknown unknowns. Perhaps even more than there are malicious thoughts, given the vast scale of the universe and it's impregnable mystery.
I'm saying that building not being obliterated is clear 100% proof that a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped on Hiroshima.
Your capacity to make simple things unintelligible is spectacular!
I think it's possible for a building not to be obliterated though near a large explosion. The number of factors involved is immense, and the system is chaotic as it nearly always is. Rare, unexpected, and paradoxical things do happen.
It's not some sort of law of nature that a "nuclear" bomb would have destroyed that building; it's no a priori truth. Without that status it seems to me that the notion that it's "...clear 100% proof..." is far overblown. Sure you could take it as a bit of evidence, it might even be somewhat persuasive, but it's not an open and shut case unless that building not being obliterated is a necessary and sufficient condition to prove a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped.
That this is all the 'proof' one would need seems a bit of a stretch to me, to say the least.
Also thank you for your kind words.
You are never lost for words it seems..
Facts, evidence, coherent points of view...but never words!